# Operator of self-driving Uber vehicle that killed Arizona pedestrian was felon



## Uberdaddyo

Uber suspended all of its self-driving testing Monday after what is believed to be the first fatal pedestrian crash involving the vehicles.

The testing has been going on for months in the Phoenix area, Pittsburgh, San Francisco and Toronto as automakers and technology companies compete to be the first with the technology.

-----

I'm glad hope they lose a ton of money because of this

http://www.wpxi.com/news/top-storie...iving-vehicle-service-in-pittsburgh/718237441


----------



## Working4peanuts

Hahaha. Sdc left scene of accident. Obviously it is programmed to do that or it wouldn't have done it.

I smell uber being the subject of increased regulatory scrutiny very very soon!


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4

Working4peanuts said:


> Hahaha. Sdc left scene of accident. Obviously it is programmed to do that or it wouldn't have done it.
> 
> I smell uber being the subject of increased regulatory scrutiny very very soon!


IT DID NOT leave the scene of the accident.


----------



## Working4peanuts




----------



## Cableguynoe

Self driving car is still at large.

Be on the lookout guys.


----------



## ÜberKraut

_"...at night, during storms, and other challenging conditions to help their vehicles learn to navigate in a variety of environments.
According to Tempe PD, the car was in autonomous mode at the time of the incident, *with a vehicle operator sitting behind the wheel.*"_

Waiting for reaction from tomatopaste who thinks these things "are ready for prime time."
Waymo anyway?

Looks like they won't be coming to Pennsylvania anytime soon?


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4

http://www.wpxi.com/news/top-storie...-uber-struck-her-car-left-the-scene/711927153

Different story...

The fatal accident in Tempe WAS NOT a hit and run.

I am all for trashing uber,

But i only throw dirt on them that they deserve.


----------



## Cableguynoe

ÜberKraut said:


> Waiting for reaction from tomatopaste who thinks these things "are ready for prime time."


I would also love to hear his take on this.

However, I believe dude got himself banned.



Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> I am all for trashing uber,
> 
> But i only throw dirt on them that they deserve.


This isn't how it works.

We hang them first, apologize later.


----------



## Blatherskite

Headlines: Stephen King Revealed Prophetic

Did some assembly line worker at the auto plant get cut on one of the body panels?


----------



## Tysmith95

If anyone is going to come out with a viable self driving car it's not going to be Uber.


----------



## Kalee

Officials said an Arizona woman was killed after being struck by a self-driving Uber vehicle early Monday -- an incident believed to be the first of its kind.

The accident in the Phoenix suburb of Tempe caused the company to suspend all testing of self-driving vehicles in cities across the country.

Tempe Police Sgt. Ronald Elcock told Fox News that Elaine Herzberg, 49, was walking outside of a crosswalk when she was struck by the vehicle just before 10 p.m.

"The vehicle was traveling northbound just south of Curry Rd. when a female walking outside of the crosswalk crossed the road from west to east when she was struck by the Uber vehicle," police said.

*Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona pedestrian*

Gee, I sure didn't see this coming.


----------



## Cynergie

Uberdaddyo said:


> I'm glad hope they lose a ton of money because of this
> 
> http://www.wpxi.com/news/top-storie...iving-vehicle-service-in-pittsburgh/718237441


Hahaha. It was only a matter of time. Need to start placing bets on how fast investors start abandoning ship on this #EpicFailed adventure

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...nomous-car-involved-in-fatal-crash-in-arizona

Good luck and Godspeed Dara!

tick tock. tick tock. tick tock.......


----------



## BurgerTiime

SAN FRANCISCO - A woman in Tempe, Ariz., has died after being hit by a self-driving car operated by Uber, in what appears to be the first known death of a pedestrian struck by an autonomous vehicle on a public road.

The Uber vehicle was in autonomous mode with a human safety driver at the wheel when it struck the woman, who was crossing the street outside of a crosswalk, the Tempe police said in a statement. The episode happened on Sunday around 10 p.m. The woman was not publicly identified.

Uber said it had suspended testing of its self-driving cars in Tempe, Pittsburgh, San Francisco and Toronto.

"Our hearts go out to the victim's family. We are fully cooperating with local authorities in their investigation of this incident," an Uber spokeswoman, Sarah Abboud, said in a statement.

The fatal crash will most likely raise questions about regulations for self-driving cars. Testing of self-driving cars is already underway for vehicles that have a human driver ready to take over if something goes wrong, but states are starting to allow companies to test cars without a person in the driver's seat. This month, California said that, in April, it would start allowing companies to test autonomous vehicles without anyone behind the wheel.

Arizona already allows self-driving cars to operate without a driver behind the wheel. Since late last year, Waymo, the self-driving car unit from Google's parent company Alphabet, has been using cars without a human in the driver's seat to pick up and drop off passengers there. The state has largely taken a hands-off approach, promising that it would help keep the driverless car industry free from regulation. As a result, technology companies have flocked to Arizona to test their self-driving vehicles.

Autonomous cars are expected to ultimately be safer than human drivers, because they don't get distracted and always observe traffic laws. However, researchers working on the technology have struggled with how to teach the autonomous systems to adjust for unpredictable human driving or behavior.

An Uber self-driving car was involved in another crash a year ago in Tempe. In that collision, one of Uber's Volvo XC90 sport utility vehicles was hit when the driver of another car failed to yield, causing the Uber vehicle to roll over onto its side. The car was in self-driving mode with a safety driver behind the wheel, but police said the autonomous vehicle had not been at fault.

The National Transportation Safety Board was sending a small team of investigators to Arizona to gather information about the Uber crash, said Eric Weiss, an N.T.S.B. spokesman.


----------



## Bob Reynolds

I think this is to be expected. Think about how many times your GPS has sent you to the wrong place or had you go around in circles for no reason. 

How about trying to send you down a street that doesn't exist? Or one that is blocked off?


----------



## Cossio

Meh,

People are going to over react, but how many people are killed everyday with a person behind the wheel? I don't see how this is is any worse.

I can imaging a drunk gaggle walking through St. Patrick's day jaywalking or through a greenlight. How is a machine supposed to react?


----------



## Kalee

Cossio said:


> Meh,
> 
> People are going to over react, but how many people are killed everyday with a person behind the wheel? I don't see how this is is any worse.
> 
> I can imaging a drunk gaggle walking through St. Patrick's day jaywalking or through a greenlight. How is a machine supposed to react?


Except for one of Uber's primary selling points of self-driving cars was to eliminate human error, accidents ... and death


----------



## Cossio

Kalee said:


> Except for one of Uber's primary selling points of self-driving cars was to eliminate human error, accidents ... and death


Can't make an omelette without killing a few people.


----------



## JustPayMe

“Our hearts go out to the victim’s family. We are fully cooperating with local authorities in their investigation of this incident,”

Got to love how they admitted VICTIM 

So now not just a victim of money theft but loss of life to 

My heart goes out to the first UBER VICTIM that had to give up thier life for corporate greed


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Uber should be tried for vehicular manslaughter.


----------



## JustPayMe

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Uber should be tried for vehicular manslaughter.


I totally agree they should be charged with vehicle manslaughter they had a person in the car to try to keep an incident like this from happening but yet they're Safeguard fail meaning they did not have enough safeguards to guarantee the safety of the public but of course it's comes down to corporate greed


----------



## scrabble cat

Not that killing someone is not bad enough... but since the entire future profitability for Uber--since they run a massive structural deficit in the $billions that volume alone can't overcome--appears to depend on autonomous vehicles, I believe this incident could threaten the viability of Uber more than all that bad PR from 2017 did. 

The NY Times is reporting Uber has halted self-driving car tests. Sure that's just 'for now'... but what municipal legislator is going to want their city to be on the bleeding edge of autonomous cars *now*?


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

scrabble cat said:


> Not that killing someone is not bad enough... but since the entire future profitability for Uber--since they run a massive structural deficit in the $billions that volume alone can't overcome--appears to depend on autonomous vehicles, I believe this incident could threaten the viability of Uber more than all that bad PR from 2017 did.
> 
> The NY Times is reporting Uber has halted self-driving car tests. Sure that's just 'for now'... but what municipal legislator is going to want their city to be on the bleeding edge of autonomous cars *now*?


Emphasis on "bleeding" edge.
Dead constituents are no fun.


----------



## Gung-Ho

These sdc's are self learning. Now that one has gotten the taste for human blood they all thirst for it.


----------



## njn

Uber is the victim in this case. They will release the dash cam footage to show jaywalker's negligence.


----------



## Working4peanuts




----------



## Sal29

Kalee said:


> *Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona pedestrian*
> 
> Gee, I sure didn't see this coming.


Hopefully Uber has to pay billions to the the victims family and some Uber Executives get life in prison.
It probably won't happen, but I can dream can't I?


----------



## Uberfunitis

Its seems to have actually been a bicyclist based on the pictures and description. It is a good thing that it was a SDC that was involve there will be much data to look at and help determine fault in the incident. If this had happened to an actual driver they would have been screwed unless their was a dash cam that caught it all or some external recording. I know most cyclist in my area seem to have no regard at all for the rules of the road.


----------



## nomad_driver

Cossio said:


> Meh,
> 
> People are going to over react, but how many people are killed everyday with a person behind the wheel? I don't see how this is is any worse.
> 
> I can imaging a drunk gaggle walking through St. Patrick's day jaywalking or through a greenlight. How is a machine supposed to react?


Some variation of not hitting the drunk humans would be the correct reaction.


----------



## RideshareSpectrum

Forget for a moment about the tech, the Volvo, and no offense to the family and loved ones affected by this tragic accident... 
but why is no one is talking about the driver behind the wheel?

Job description:: Try not to crash, and whatever you do DONT KILL ANYONE!!! 

Dude had ONE JOB.


----------



## ÜberKraut

Uberfunitis said:


> Its seems to have actually been a bicyclist based on the pictures and description. It is a good thing that it was a SDC that was involve there will be much data to look at and help determine fault in the incident. If this had happened to an actual driver they would have been screwed unless their was a dash cam that caught it all or some external recording. I know most cyclist in my area seem to have no regard at all for the rules of the road.


Which is exactly why I make a wide arc around bikes when passing them.
I wonder if the Rider made some sort of fast maneuver into the path of the SDC?
What was the human operator in there to do and why didn't he do it?
NTSB is on the case.
Get ready for some knee jerk legislation to be proposed.


----------



## unPat

Too bad for uber there were no human in the car. Now there’s no one to blame.


----------



## ÜberKraut

unPat said:


> Too bad for uber there were no human in the car. Now there's no one to blame.


_"The Uber vehicle was in autonomous mode with a human safety driver at the wheel when it struck the woman..."_


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4

unPat said:


> Too bad for uber there were no human in the car. Now there's no one to blame.


There was a safety overseer in the car.


----------



## RideshareSpectrum

Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> There was a safety overseer in the car.


Go back and read the thread, troll genius.


----------



## iheartuber

Cossio said:


> Can't make an omelette without killing a few people.


Yeah I'll bet the investors really want to hear that


----------



## at-007smartLP

Cossio said:


> Meh,
> 
> People are going to over react, but how many people are killed everyday with a person behind the wheel? I don't see how this is is any worse.
> 
> I can imaging a drunk gaggle walking through St. Patrick's day jaywalking or through a greenlight. How is a machine supposed to react?


on average per state per day

2-3 people murder themselves
1-2 die in an automobile
less than 1 is actually murdered

its the safest time in human history dont believe the hype

time to raise rates


----------



## YukonDew

Cossio said:


> Can't make an omelette without killing a few people.


Hope you don't have another gig cooking for Denny's.

Well, at least Uber is consistent.

Self driving car was deactivated.... I wonder if the car will get to send in the dash cam footage to plead it's case...


----------



## BurgerTiime

Victim named:
The female pedestrian, identified as 49-year-old Elaine Herzberg, was walking her bicycle across the street outside the crosswalk when she was struck, police said, adding that an investigation is ongoing.








She died of her injuries at a hospital.
In a briefing on Monday afternoon, police said the car was equipped with multiple cameras -- one looking forward and one facing the human driver.

Police added that the driver showed no signs of impairment and that prosecutors will be looking at the case for possible charged.

The vehicle was going 40 mph when it hit the pedestrian. There was no indication the car attempted to slow itself before the collision.

In a statement to ABC News, Uber said, "Our hearts go out to the victim's family. We are fully cooperating with local authorities in their investigation of this incident."

In the wake of the crash, Uber has suspended its self-driving operations in San Francisco, Pittsburgh, Phoenix and Toronto, the ridesharing service said.

_Editor's note: An earlier version of this story misidentified the women. She was walking her bike across the street when hit, police said._


----------



## Retired Senior

Cableguynoe said:


> Self driving car is still at large.
> 
> Be on the lookout guys.


Shit! Sorry about the fatality, but it reinforces my opinion that these things are not ready for "prime time".


----------



## Bart McCoy

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Uber should be tried for vehicular manslaughter.


This is silly and stupid. The lady was walking outside of the crosswalk, she had no right of way. For all we know she jumped in front of the car. Depending on when she illegally walked in the street, maybe nobody could have prevented this.

How in the world with the evidence given so far would you think Uber (not even the driver) would be tried for manslaughter? Makes no sense


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4

RideshareSpectrum said:


> Go back and read the thread, troll genius.


If the car is driving itself, the guy in the drivers seat... Is he techically a ..DRIVER?
No.. he's a safety overseer...

They arn't a safety driver, they are a safety overseer...

And i replied within 2 minutes of the guy above me. He probably replied while i was typing on my cell phone.


----------



## Iamfoodgod

Bart McCoy said:


> This is silly and stupid. The lady was walking outside of the crosswalk, she had no right of way. For all we know she jumped in front of the car. Depending on when she illegally walked in the street, maybe nobody could have prevented this.
> 
> How in the world with the evidence given so far would you think Uber (not even the driver) would be tried for manslaughter? Makes no sense


It's not wether she had right of way. Imagine I run someone over without stopping, even if they were j walking across the street it'd still be vehicular manslaughter because

vehicular manslaughter~
n. the crime of causing the death of a human being due to illegal driving of an automobile, including gross negligence, drunk driving, reckless driving or speeding.

gross negligence~
n. carelessness which is in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, and is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety.

Sounds right right? The gross negligence was there and so was the human death causing part.


----------



## Bart McCoy

Iamfoodgod said:


> It's not wether she had right of way. Imagine I run someone over without stopping, even if they were j walking across the street it'd still be vehicular manslaughter because
> 
> vehicular manslaughter~
> n. the crime of causing the death of a human being due to illegal driving of an automobile, including gross negligence, drunk driving, reckless driving or speeding.
> 
> gross negligence~
> n. carelessness which is in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, and is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety.
> 
> Sounds right right? The gross negligence was there and so was the human death causing part.


No it doesn't sound right. If somebody walks in the street, a car can't be guaranteed to stop. It's negligence on the pedestrian's part. Exactly what did the Uber car do wrong?????????????


----------



## Cableguynoe

The one good thing that will come of this is that those cars have cameras up the yin yang. 

Soon all the questions we have will be answered. 

It should be clear if it was pedestrians fault of Uber’s. 

I’m sure the attorneys already know.


----------



## iheartuber

Cableguynoe said:


> The one good thing that will come of this is that those cars have cameras up the yin yang.
> 
> Soon all the questions we have will be answered.
> 
> It should be clear if it was pedestrians fault of Uber's.
> 
> I'm sure the attorneys already know.


The victim was walking her bike across the street when she was struck and killed. I don't see how the robot car gets out of this.

If a human was driving you know that would be vehicular manslaughter.

Then again, a human would have seen her, slowed down, stopped, or swerved.


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4

iheartuber said:


> The victim was walking her bike across the street when she was struck and killed. I don't see how the robot car gets out of this.
> 
> If a human was driving you know that would be vehicular manslaughter.
> 
> Then again, a human would have seen her, slowed down, stopped, or swerved.


The safety "Driver" could still be charged with vehicular manslaughter. If i was the DA i would consider it.


----------



## Cableguynoe

iheartuber said:


> The victim was walking her bike across the street when she was struck and killed


She was walking her bike across the street or she was walking her bike and suddenly and without warning walked onto the road.

Which one? Do you know?


----------



## iheartuber

Cableguynoe said:


> She was walking her bike across the street or she was walking her bike and suddenly and without warning walked onto the road.
> 
> Which one? Do you know?


Unless the woman was trying to commit suicide by robot car there is no reason why anyone would do that on purpose


----------



## Grahamcracker

The lady totally had it coming. I would have hit her as well. SHE WAS OUT OF THE CROSS WALK!


----------



## Kalee

Next up: Uber-bicycles. Just sit on the seat and let the bike do the "smart" driving. No human error to worry about.


----------



## Blatherskite

Now, all Lyft needs to do is inaugurate a fleet of self-driving Herby the Love Bug beetles and characterize Uber's vehicle as a malevolently animated character like maybe Cruella DeVille's Bugatti. This is their chance to win hearts and minds (or lack of).


----------



## I_Like_Spam

I don't think these self drivers are working that well.

I was on 45th St. near Children's Hosp, a self driver passed me on the other side, and it really looked like the guy in the drivers seat was sweating it yesterday. It didn't look like it was self driving.


----------



## BurgerTiime

Bart McCoy said:


> This is silly and stupid. The lady was walking outside of the crosswalk, she had no right of way. For all we know she jumped in front of the car. Depending on when she illegally walked in the street, maybe nobody could have prevented this.
> 
> How in the world with the evidence given so far would you think Uber (not even the driver) would be tried for manslaughter? Makes no sense


So what you're saying if a child is chasing a ball into the street these vehicles should be programmed to run em over?
I've had to stop for a child on a scooter coming down her driveway and into the street and was blocked by a parked car.
I had to slam on the brakes or I would have injured or killed that child. You must use commeon sense and avoid harming someone who has no protection from a car hit or is purely innocent. 
That's what these vehicles are lacking. They aren't programmed with common sense.

*Police Say Uber Is Likely Not at Fault for Its Self-Driving Car Fatality in Arizona*
https://fortune.com/2018/03/19/uber-self-driving-car-crash/


----------



## Wonkytonk

Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> The safety "Driver" could still be charged with vehicular manslaughter. If i was the DA i would consider it.


We don't really know all of the facts yet so it's hard to say definitively one way or another, but I would think that the greater good would be for the DA to go after Uber for it's faulty (negligent) software development for the algorithms which determine how the car reacted when faced with the situation presented by that bike rider. To me whether, or not, she did something illegal that seems to me something that happens on a fairly regular basis and for the car not to respond in a way that avoids the loss of life is completely unacceptable.

I'm sure there are situations where the loss of life wouldn't be avoidable, but this doesn't seem like one of those cases with the information released so far. Lord help Uber if their code is analyzed and it's determined that they selected to protect the car from damage to itself in scenarios like this.


----------



## eXperiment

Cableguynoe said:


> This isn't how it works.
> 
> We hang them first, apologize later.


apologise to poobears?

Hilarious



"Trial Lol" - UXDriver


----------



## Ron Jeremy Sez

SHe was on her I phone ordering a LYFT


----------



## Aerodrifting

I think some of you are seriously overreacting or just trolling, Or just dumping your anger. 

The news clearly stated police saw the footage from the self driving car, And commented that it was difficult for the car to avoid the woman as she came out of the shadows straight into the road. To my understanding she basically jumped into lane from the side ignoring all traffic, No one could have avoided her, Self driving vehicles included. Based on the information so far, Looks like the SDC is not at fault here.


----------



## Wonkytonk

Aerodrifting said:


> I think some of you are seriously overreacting or just trolling, Or just dumping your anger.
> 
> The news clearly stated police saw the footage from the self driving car, And commented that it was difficult for the car to avoid the woman as she came out of the shadows straight into the road. To my understanding she basically jumped into lane from the side ignoring all traffic, No one could have avoided her, Self driving vehicles included. Based on the information so far, Looks like the SDC is not at fault here.


Like I said we don't know all of the facts, but that article also said the car didn't apply the brakes.

That alone is just unacceptable.

The car is supposed to have cameras and sensors which should make it easier to spot something like that. Whatever they've got on the car collectively they're obviously insufficient if in addition to failing to id the bike and woman which combined make a fairly large outline, the car never applied the brakes.

Incidents like that happen on a regular basis, and since there wasn't an actual human behind the wheel statements that it couldn't have been avoided seem at best premature.


----------



## Aerodrifting

Wonkytonk said:


> Like I said we don't know all of the facts, but that article also said the car didn't apply the brakes.
> 
> That alone is just unacceptable.
> 
> The car is supposed to have cameras and sensors which should make it easier to spot something like that. Whatever they've got on the car collectively they're obviously insufficient if in addition to failing to id the bike and woman which combined make a fairly large outline, the car never applied the brakes.
> 
> Incidents like that happen on a regular basis, and since there wasn't an actual human behind the wheel statements that it couldn't have been avoided seem at best premature.


If a pedestrian jumped into the middle of a lane from somewhere you can not see (from the dark, behind a sign, blocked by a large vehicle), You won't have time to apply brakes if it were too close.

I am pretty sure SDC also has a reaction time frame, Depending on how fast it refreshes its data.


----------



## Wonkytonk

Aerodrifting said:


> If a pedestrian jumped into the middle of a lane from somewhere you can not see (from the dark, behind a sign, blocked by a large vehicle), You won't have time to apply brakes if it were too close.
> 
> I am pretty sure SDC also has a reaction time frame, Depending on how fast it refreshes its data.


Again we don't have all of the information. At what point were the brakes applied? Did the human co-rider have to intervene to apply them? 
I would have thought that brakes should have been applied the moment an impact was sensed by the car.

Were they? Don't know, there's not enough information yet.

I'm not willing to give that car's programming a pass based on the information we have so far. It's way too premature to state that it was unavoidable.


----------



## iheartuber

Aerodrifting said:


> I think some of you are seriously overreacting or just trolling, Or just dumping your anger.
> 
> The news clearly stated police saw the footage from the self driving car, And commented that it was difficult for the car to avoid the woman as she came out of the shadows straight into the road. To my understanding she basically jumped into lane from the side ignoring all traffic, No one could have avoided her, Self driving vehicles included. Based on the information so far, Looks like the SDC is not at fault here.


I don't buy that. Unless she had a death wish it is extremely dumb, no person would walk in front of a car like that


----------



## YukonDew

Aerodrifting said:


> Looks like the SDC is not at fault here.


Opinion appreciated, but all of us that drive see the unexpected too often and it's good to be skeptical regarding the logic incorporated into the controls of SDC. Most of us have to drive pretty defensively or we'd needlessly end up in too many accidents. Since the real goal ought to be focused on avoiding accidents and not simply avoiding fault, I am glad they are halting the use of SDC until they can evaluate the situation thoroughly.


----------



## Cvi

A human would be able to make assumptions about whether or not a pedestrian might dart into the street without looking by observing body movements, and apply preemptive caution. A machine cannot do that.


----------



## tohunt4me

Cableguynoe said:


> Self driving car is still at large.
> 
> Be on the lookout guys.


Shoot on Sight



Kalee said:


> Officials said an Arizona woman was killed after being struck by a self-driving Uber vehicle early Monday -- an incident believed to be the first of its kind.
> 
> The accident in the Phoenix suburb of Tempe caused the company to suspend all testing of self-driving vehicles in cities across the country.
> 
> Tempe Police Sgt. Ronald Elcock told Fox News that Elaine Herzberg, 49, was walking outside of a crosswalk when she was struck by the vehicle just before 10 p.m.
> 
> "The vehicle was traveling northbound just south of Curry Rd. when a female walking outside of the crosswalk crossed the road from west to east when she was struck by the Uber vehicle," police said.
> 
> *Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona pedestrian*
> 
> Gee, I sure didn't see this coming.


Apparently
Neither did the poor woman.


----------



## karachi

Aerodrifting said:


> I think some of you are seriously overreacting or just trolling, Or just dumping your anger.
> 
> The news clearly stated police saw the footage from the self driving car, And commented that it was difficult for the car to avoid the woman as she came out of the shadows straight into the road. To my understanding she basically jumped into lane from the side ignoring all traffic, No one could have avoided her, Self driving vehicles included. Based on the information so far, Looks like the SDC is not at fault here.


Yeah, I agree. Looks like she was a homeless woman with a death wish. Apparently she just jump out into traffic from the shadows and they didn't even blink an eye.


----------



## tohunt4me

Kalee said:


> Except for one of Uber's primary selling points of self-driving cars was to eliminate human error, accidents ... and death


Just like " ride sharing" was Promoted as " Creating Human Jobs"?



TwoFiddyMile said:


> Uber should be tried for vehicular manslaughter.


Contact the family.

Lets get it set up.

Ill donate $100.00 for their Lawyer.


----------



## Xeverrer

Just tell me what you remember....


----------



## KenLV

iheartuber said:


> I don't buy that. Unless she had a death wish it is extremely dumb, no person would walk in front of a car like that


You're kidding, right? I see people run right out into traffic here on The Strip ALL THE TIME - I had it happen this weekend, and if I didn't "give a beat" at every light change, I'd have had some a$$hat (who ran right in front of my car around a truck OUT OF A CROSSWALK) testing my front bumper for me.

From what I read, the place this lady got killed at, people cross illegally regularly.

There are a ton of things that could have had her attention instead of the traffic, starting with her phone and her bike. No one (alive) knows for certain what may have distracted her.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

I had no idea that Arizona allowed self driving cars on the road without a driver in the driver seat. Unreal.

Anyhow, this is just the beginning. A lot more guinea pigs coming.



Bart McCoy said:


> This is silly and stupid. The lady was walking outside of the crosswalk, she had no right of way. For all we know she jumped in front of the car. Depending on when she illegally walked in the street, maybe nobody could have prevented this.
> 
> How in the world with the evidence given so far would you think Uber (not even the driver) would be tried for manslaughter? Makes no sense


Even when someone doesn't have the right of way, you must make an attempt to not hit them. If no attempt was made, then you can still be charged with manslaughter. Nice try, 'though.

Also, to add to this thread, what kind of driver is going to want to be in these things when they hear about this accident. What drivers wants to risk being charged with manslaughter ? Looks like the chickens are finally coming home to roost for these cars, just what a lot of us have always been warning about.

There are a million variables of things that can go wrong with these cars. The worst you'll have with a human driver is being distracted. When not distracted, even the stupidest human is many times better than any robot.


----------



## himynameis

Want goes around comes around. Time for uber to wake up


----------



## Oscar Levant

Uberdaddyo said:


> Uber suspended all of its self-driving testing Monday after what is believed to be the first fatal pedestrian crash involving the vehicles.
> 
> The testing has been going on for months in the Phoenix area, Pittsburgh, San Francisco and Toronto as automakers and technology companies compete to be the first with the technology.
> 
> -----
> 
> I'm glad hope they lose a ton of money because of this
> 
> http://www.wpxi.com/news/top-storie...iving-vehicle-service-in-pittsburgh/718237441


I've been saying this all along. put a drop of ink in a gallon of water, and it won't turn a tint of grey, it will look like a gallon of black ink. These SDCs are one huge boondoggle. one death is all it took.

Here's the real flaw in SDCs. They are made/owned by one company, right? so everyone that is riding in them really has only one driver, all of them have the same driver --- UBER is the driver. If there are thousands of these things on the road, and there will be deaths, every day, if there are 300,000 on the raod, as there are deaths in large groups, but it will look like ONE DRIVER did the killing. Every day, UBER will kill someone, it's math. If you have 400,000 drivers, it's not UBER who is driving and killing, See what I mean?

That is why its not going to fly.


----------



## Wonkytonk

Oscar Levant said:


> I've been saying this all along. put a drop of ink in a gallon of water, and it won't turn a tint of grey, it will look like a gallon of black ink. These SDCs are one huge boondoggle. one death is all it took.
> 
> Here's the real flaw in SDCs. They are made/owned by one company, right? so everyone that is riding in them really has only one driver, all of them have the same driver --- UBER is the driver. If there are thousands of these things on the road, and there will be deaths, every day, if there are 300,000 on the raod, as there are deaths in large groups, but it will look like ONE DRIVER did the killing. Every day, UBER will kill someone, it's math. If you have 400,000 drivers, it's not UBER who is driving and killing, See what I mean?
> 
> That is why its not going to fly.


For as far back as the idea of autonomous cars has been around so too has the idea that these cars would be responsible for deaths. That's pretty much been taken for granted as then future probability, and now actual fact.

Far before uber I remember reading an article which laid that out and made the case that if there is a compelling interest for the state (US as a country/ and States individually/ pretty much any country really), and I think most governments would find that there is, and if that interest is compelling enough, then those states should pass legislation to protect the industry from, or limit the damages to these companies from litigation as a result of accidents caused by the vehicles while the bugs are worked out.

I can almost guarantee every company with their toes in the autonomous car pond are pushing for exactly that type of legislation.

I'm sad that that woman died.

I hope that one of the things that comes out of this is for Uber to figure out it can't keep treating its drivers with such contempt on the basis that their savior, autonomous cars, will save them from driver demands for fair pay.

Incidents like this, and there will be more, will only serve to delay the implementation of autonomous fleets.


----------



## ÜberKraut

_"The NTSB said that *driver inattention was to blame *
but that design limitations with the system played a 
major role in the crash."*

*https://www.charlotteobserver.com/latest-news/article205847914.html_

Sure... let's just* THROW THE DRIVER UNDER THE BUS (or SDC)
BEFORE* the investigation is even complete.

_"The cars also are not capable of reacting to *reckless behavior of others *
on the road quickly enough to avoid the consequences,"**

**https://www.computerworld.com/artic...ng-cars-may-never-really-be-self-driving.html_

_The biggest challenge for self-driving companies is to teach their cars 
how to *react to us humans and our unpredictable behavior*..."***_
_
***https://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/cars/a19482746/self-driving-uber-kills-woman/_

I fly several sUAS Camera Quads a/k/a Drones and the FAA regulates the HECK out of them and the industry in general.
But if *BIG MONEY *is involved with the likes of Waymo, Uber, GM, etc. let's have *Minimal Regulation*...
*WTF?*
_

_



BurgerTiime said:


> I've had to stop for a child on a scooter coming down her driveway and into the street and was blocked by a parked car.
> I had to slam on the brakes or I would have injured or killed that child. You must use commeon sense and avoid harming someone who has no protection from a car hit or is purely innocent.


Great example!


----------



## REX HAVOC

Fupayme said:


> I totally agree they should be charged with vehicle manslaughter they had a person in the car to try to keep an incident like this from happening but yet they're Safeguard fail meaning they did not have enough safeguards to guarantee the safety of the public but of course it's comes down to corporate greed


Most likely the driver was napping when the incident occurred.


----------



## ntcindetroit

Ironically, the woman was killed where the sign says "YIELD TO BIKES".









Either the Uber can't read the sign in dark or she and her bike were invisible to the Uber Safe Driver.


----------



## luvgurl22

Uberdaddyo said:


> Uber suspended all of its self-driving testing Monday after what is believed to be the first fatal pedestrian crash involving the vehicles.
> 
> The testing has been going on for months in the Phoenix area, Pittsburgh, San Francisco and Toronto as automakers and technology companies compete to be the first with the technology.
> 
> -----
> 
> I'm glad hope they lose a ton of money because of this
> 
> http://www.wpxi.com/news/top-storie...iving-vehicle-service-in-pittsburgh/718237441


Unfortunate, but many more of those to come.


----------



## ntcindetroit

Cableguynoe said:


> She was walking her bike across the street or she was walking her bike and suddenly and without warning walked onto the road.
> 
> Which one? Do you know?


It doesn't matter. The sign says [Yield to Bikes], not bike and woman.


----------



## SurgeMasterMN

#RideShareIsHuman


----------



## Uberfunitis

People get hit by cars all the time while crossing the road, and those are cars being driven by actual humans. There is no guarantee that a human driver would have yielded any different outcome.


----------



## Veju

The question everyone wants to know is was the car 1 starred or are robotsimmune to social engineering manipulation?



Fupayme said:


> "Our hearts go out to the victim's family. We are fully cooperating with local authorities in their investigation of this incident,"
> 
> Got to love how they admitted VICTIM
> 
> So now not just a victim of money theft but loss of life to
> 
> My heart goes out to the first UBER VICTIM that had to give up thier life for corporate greed


Normally, the Uber victims are the people in the drivers seat .


----------



## Bart McCoy

iheartuber said:


> The victim was walking her bike across the street when she was struck and killed. I don't see how the robot car gets out of this.
> 
> If a human was driving you know that would be vehicular manslaughter.
> 
> Then again, a human would have seen her, slowed down, stopped, or swerved.


We don't have the facts that the Uber car didn't swerve. Off break, the one who died was in the wrong. You can't say a regular human driver could have avoided this so far



BurgerTiime said:


> So what you're saying if a child is chasing a ball into the street these vehicles should be programmed to run em over?
> 
> *Police Say Uber Is Likely Not at Fault for Its Self-Driving Car Fatality in Arizona*
> https://fortune.com/2018/03/19/uber-self-driving-car-crash/


No, what I'm saying is, even not about the Uber vehicle, even a regular human driver in a regular car may have not been able to avoid this, that's what folks in this topic aren't understanding, they just quick to lay blame to Uber, even though you just posted a link to an article that says Uber is most likely not at fault............which is most likely the case



Aerodrifting said:


> I think some of you are seriously overreacting or just trolling, Or just dumping your anger.
> 
> The news clearly stated police saw the footage from the self driving car, And commented that it was difficult for the car to avoid the woman as she came out of the shadows straight into the road. To my understanding she basically jumped into lane from the side ignoring all traffic, No one could have avoided her, Self driving vehicles included. Based on the information so far, Looks like the SDC is not at fault here.


thank you. Just because its computer driven does not make the car a super hero. Doesn't mean it can prevent everything thrown at it, like literally, if she abruptly walked out into the street not at a crosswalk, not sure how a car supposed to break from 40mph to zero in 8inches



iheartuber said:


> I don't buy that. Unless she had a death wish it is extremely dumb, no person would walk in front of a car like that


Ah okay, so you saying idiots don't exist. Good to know



uberdriverfornow said:


> I had no idea that Arizona allowed self driving cars on the road without a driver in the driver seat. Unreal.
> 
> Even when someone doesn't have the right of way, you must make an attempt to not hit them. If no attempt was made, then you can still be charged with manslaughter. Nice try, 'though.
> 
> .


Where is this regulation that says you must make an attempt, even if you possibly don't have a chance? I'd like to see it. Link me to a study where a pedestrian was at fault, but a driver was charged for manslaughter because they didn't attempt to swerve or otherwise endanger somebody else or property (which happens when you make quick swerve at moving speeds)



Uberfunitis said:


> People get hit by cars all the time while crossing the road, and those are cars being driven by actual humans. There is no guarantee that a human driver would have yielded any different outcome.


They expect Uber cars to wear a cape and swoop in and save every person from dying, unreal


----------



## iheartuber

Uberfunitis said:


> People get hit by cars all the time while crossing the road, and those are cars being driven by actual humans. There is no guarantee that a human driver would have yielded any different outcome.


That's not the point. The point is, if this same exact thing happened to a hunan driver that human driver would still be held responsible.

The whole argument from the robot car crowd is that robots are supposed to be "safer". Yeah I guess not so much right?


----------



## Uberfunitis

iheartuber said:


> That's not the point. The point is, if this same exact thing happened to a hunan driver that human driver would still be held responsible.
> 
> The whole argument from the robot car crowd is that robots are supposed to be "safer". Yeah I guess not so much right?


That is not true at all, if you can show that you were not at fault ie dash cam video etc you are not automatically held responsible for something that was not your fault. All bets are off though if you are under the influence of alcohol or something than it is your fault no matter what happened.


----------



## tohunt4me

Wonkytonk said:


> For as far back as the idea of autonomous cars has been around so too has the idea that these cars would be responsible for deaths. That's pretty much been taken for granted as then future probability, and now actual fact.
> 
> Far before uber I remember reading an article which laid that out and made the case that if there is a compelling interest for the state (US as a country/ and States individually/ pretty much any country really), and I think most governments would find that there is, and if that interest is compelling enough, then those states should pass legislation to protect the industry from, or limit the damages to these companies from litigation as a result of accidents caused by the vehicles while the bugs are worked out.
> 
> I can almost guarantee every company with their toes in the autonomous car pond are pushing for exactly that type of legislation.
> 
> I'm sad that that woman died.
> 
> I hope that one of the things that comes out of this is for Uber to figure out it can't keep treating its drivers with such contempt on the basis that their savior, autonomous cars, will save them from driver demands for fair pay.
> 
> Incidents like this, and there will be more, will only serve to delay the implementation of autonomous fleets.


Chineese Killer cars will invade the world



Veju said:


> The question everyone wants to know is was the car 1 starred or are robotsimmune to social engineering manipulation?
> 
> Normally, the Uber victims are the people in the drivers seat .


So TRUE


----------



## iheartuber

Uberfunitis said:


> That is not true at all, if you can show that you were not at fault ie dash cam video etc you are not automatically held responsible for something that was not your fault. All bets are off though if you are under the influence of alcohol or something than it is your fault no matter what happened.


Maybe criminally a human can theoretically "get off" under certain circumstances, but def not in civil court.


----------



## Uberfunitis

iheartuber said:


> Maybe criminally a human can theoretically "get off" under certain circumstances, but def not in civil court.


Not at fault is not at fault. Not every civil case ends in victory for the person hurt.


----------



## iheartuber

Uberfunitis said:


> Not at fault is not at fault. Not every civil case ends in victory for the person hurt.


Ask OJ about that


----------



## Cableguynoe

Xeverrer said:


> View attachment 215204
> 
> Just tell me what you remember....


Not many will get it, but I love it!


----------



## Coca-Cola

Uberdaddyo said:


> Uber suspended all of its self-driving testing Monday after what is believed to be the first fatal pedestrian crash involving the vehicles.
> 
> The testing has been going on for months in the Phoenix area, Pittsburgh, San Francisco and Toronto as automakers and technology companies compete to be the first with the technology.
> 
> -----
> 
> I'm glad hope they lose a ton of money because of this
> 
> http://www.wpxi.com/news/top-storie...iving-vehicle-service-in-pittsburgh/718237441


Your thinking is wrong.
The more money Uber loses to incident such as this, the more likely Uber to raise their commission to pay for it.
Drivers are actually the one who is paying for the law suits, compensations etc, not Uber.


----------



## Bart McCoy

iheartuber said:


> That's not the point. The point is, if this same exact thing happened to a hunan driver that human driver would still be held responsible.
> 
> The whole argument from the robot car crowd is that robots are supposed to be "safer". Yeah I guess not so much right?


What? Why would the driver be at fault because the pedestrian jumped in his way? Doesn't make sense to me. Drivers aren't responsible for other people's irresponsible actions



iheartuber said:


> Maybe criminally a human can theoretically "get off" under certain circumstances, but def not in civil court.


What?? If its not your fault it doesn't matter if they try you in civil or criminal court. If that's the case I can just go walk in the street right now and get paid millions huh?


----------



## Cynergie

Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> IT DID NOT leave the scene of the accident.


This.

By not doing that--thereby consenting to report said accident to CS by default--the dumb @$$hat just got itself and all of its SDC buddy fleet deactivated.


----------



## Uberdaddyo

Coca-Cola said:


> Your thinking is wrong.
> The more money Uber loses to incident such as this, the more likely Uber to raise their commission to pay for it.
> Drivers are actually the one who is paying for the law suits, compensations etc, not Uber.


Whether uber hits 1 or 1000 people they will continue to gouge drivers until they can be replaced with sdcs. Uber bleeds money everyday no matter what happens. So I hope they come under extreme scrutiny for this. They tout this technology as perfect when it is far from it.


----------



## iheartuber

Uberdaddyo said:


> Whether uber hits 1 or 1000 people they will continue to gouge drivers until they can be replaced with sdcs. Uber bleeds money everyday no matter what happens. So I hope they come under extreme scrutiny for this. They tout this technology as perfect when it is far from it.


That sure is uber's Dream, isn't it?

Let's see how it does in reality


----------



## Uberfunitis

Uberdaddyo said:


> Whether uber hits 1 or 1000 people they will continue to gouge drivers until they can be replaced with sdcs. Uber bleeds money everyday no matter what happens. So I hope they come under extreme scrutiny for this. They tout this technology as perfect when it is far from it.


I think they have been touting this technology as the future of transportation and a work in progress. If they thought it was perfect they would not have had a paid human siting in the vehicle.


----------



## ntcindetroit

ntcindetroit said:


> Ironically, the woman was killed where the sign says "YIELD TO BIKES".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either the Uber can't read the sign in dark or she and her bike were invisible to the Uber Safe Driver.


According to news briefing, the pedestrian was crossing from center median from west to east on Mill Ave. The damage observed on the Uber-Volvo was on the right front fender, the damage on the bike was on the front wheel, we're having a difficult time to picture how a SDC can hit the front wheel of the bike on the right front fender. Here we'd agree a dash cam is worth thousand words. Which lane the Uber was travelling in on a two-lane north bound traffic?


----------



## Uberdaddyo

Uberfunitis said:


> I think they have been touting this technology as the future of transportation and a work in progress. If they thought it was perfect they would not have had a paid human siting in the vehicle.


Well Dara k is the one saying they are ready for full autonomy in 18 months sounds like a very short time compared to the fact that cars have been around for 100 years


----------



## Uberfunitis

Uberdaddyo said:


> Well Dara k is the one saying they are ready for full autonomy in 18 months sounds like a very short time compared to the fact that cars have been around for 100 years


18 months is a very long time, and is not a hard date, this very much may push that time line back some. It will do nothing to change the final adoption of the technology though.


----------



## LuisEnrikee

I see so many damn trolls in here


----------



## iheartuber

Uberdaddyo said:


> Well Dara k is the one saying they are ready for full autonomy in 18 months sounds like a very short time compared to the fact that cars have been around for 100 years


Dara K is the tomato's uncle

And Baghdad bob is both of their cousin



Uberdaddyo said:


> Well Dara k is the one saying they are ready for full autonomy in 18 months sounds like a very short time compared to the fact that cars have been around for 100 years


Maybe they planned it?

Board: Dara there is no way we can make that 18 month deadline.

Dara: what if there was an unforeseen incident? What if something happened to push back the timeline that wasn't our fault? What if.... someone died? (Insert Evil Laugh)


----------



## LA_Native

Uber/Lyft drivers all over the world are celebrating this woman's death. It's a good thing no human driving for Uber/Lyft has ever been involved with a pedestrian fatality, otherwise, they's suspend all driving for Uber/Lyft.


----------



## Kalee

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/2...arizona-pedestrian-was-felon-report-says.html

The operator of a self-driving Uber vehicle that struck and killed a pedestrian in suburban Phoenix Monday was a convicted felon who served almost four years in prison on an attempted armed robbery charge, according to court records.

The Volvo was in self-driving mode with Rafaela Vasquez, 44, at the wheel when the car hit 49-year-old Elaine Herzberg as she was walking a bicycle outside the lines of a crosswalk, police said. Herzberg later died at a hospital.

Court records obtained by the Arizona Republic show Vasquez has a criminal record in Arizona under a different legal name, and was released from prison in 2005.

The 44-year-old served three years and 10 months in a state prison for convictions on attempted armed robbery and unsworn falsification.









In this Dec. 13, 2016 file photo, an Uber driverless car heads out for a test drive in San Francisco. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg)

Tempe police Sgt. Ronald Elcock said local authorities haven't determined fault but urged people to use crosswalks. He told reporters at a news conference Monday the Uber vehicle was traveling around 40 mph when it hit Helzberg as she stepped on to the street.

Neither she nor the backup driver showed signs of impairment, he said.

"The pedestrian was outside of the crosswalk, so it was midblock," Elcock said. "And as soon as she walked into the lane of traffic, she was struck by the vehicle."

SELF-DRIVING UBER CAR KILLS ARIZONA PEDESTRIAN, POLICE SAY

Uber immediately suspended all road-testing of such autos in the Phoenix area, Pittsburgh, San Francisco and Toronto after the deadly crash. The ride-sharing company has been testing self-driving vehicles for months as it competes with other technology companies and automakers such as Ford and General Motors.

Video
*Uber and other self-driving car crashes*
The San Francisco-based company did not return an immediate request for comment from Fox News, but declined to comment to the Arizona Republic on the conviction and the company's hiring policies, citing an active investigation. Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi expressed condolences on his Twitter account and said the company is cooperating with investigators.


----------



## iheartuber

LA_Native said:


> Uber/Lyft drivers all over the world are celebrating this woman's death. It's a good thing no human driving for Uber/Lyft has ever been involved with a pedestrian fatality, otherwise, they's suspend all driving for Uber/Lyft.


That's a cheap shot and it's an exaggeration of the truth.

No one celebrates anyone's death.

What is happening is that for a long time now Uber drivers have been screaming very loudly that SDCs are not "ready for prime time" and this tragic incident proves that.

Anyone who will use any bs excuse to try to prove otherwise is just twisted.


----------



## Bart McCoy

LoL is this a true story? how that driver slip through the cracks?

but what he went to jail for has NOTHING to do with this accident. I don't see Uber/the driver/computer driver at fault


----------



## Uberfunitis

iheartuber said:


> That's a cheap shot and it's an exaggeration of the truth.
> 
> No one celebrates anyone's death.
> 
> What is happening is that for a long time now Uber drivers have been screaming very loudly that SDCs are not "ready for prime time" and this tragic incident proves that.
> 
> Anyone who will use any bs excuse to try to prove otherwise is just twisted.


As a normal day to day Uber driver what makes us qualified to know if SDC are ready for prime time or not. Are we involved in the testing of those vehicle on any large scale? I know I have never seen one or taken a ride in one yet. Are we somehow involved in the development of the technology in some significant way?

All I see is people that are afraid of loosing their jobs to SDC's and are attempting to take advantage of any situation to further their employment opportunities.


----------



## tohunt4me

Cableguynoe said:


> Not many will get it, but I love it!


Be sure to sign up for U.N. " I.D. 2020"
so you can legally leave the house and go for a walk . . .
Otherwise your " Smart Home" will be forced to incarcerate you. You will be trapped in the " No Walk Zone".

This message brought to you by Google / D.A.R.P.A. defence contractor office of Information Awareness.

Remember : no one knows You
Like a Globalist Government does.
( Big Brother Loves You !)


----------



## BurgerTiime

Uber's self regulating sure is great! 
It's CRAZY drivers aren't even drug tested. Parents keep putting their children in cars to school. Someone with a bad habit cannot pass a drug test yet Uber doesn't seem to care about public safety one bit. Felons, people dying, it's all a part of the bigger Silicon pipe dream.


----------



## LA_Native

iheartuber said:


> That's a cheap shot and it's an exaggeration of the truth.
> 
> No one celebrates anyone's death.
> 
> What is happening is that for a long time now Uber drivers have been screaming very loudly that SDCs are not "ready for prime time" and this tragic incident proves that.
> 
> Anyone who will use any bs excuse to try to prove otherwise is just twisted.


Nah, I think it's an accurate shot. The laughing emojis and "lols" are ubiquitous on FB rideshare pages.

The investigation isn't completed, yet drivers are already saying this accident supports what they've been saying -- autonomous cars are more dangerous than human drivers to the general public. But they offer no data and certainly haven't waited for the full accident report before happily saying "I told you so."


----------



## Bpr2

Guess what. Turns out the driver of the auto car was a felon hired by uber.


----------



## iheartuber

LA_Native said:


> Nah, I think it's an accurate shot. The laughing emojis and "lols" are ubiquitous on FB rideshare pages.
> 
> The investigation isn't completed, yet drivers are already saying this accident supports what they've been saying -- autonomous cars are more dangerous than human drivers to the general public. But they offer no data and certainly haven't waited for the full accident report before happily saying "I told you so."


I am not saying robots are more dangerous than humans- just not safer than humans. And certainly not perfect as claimed.

But I do like a good opportunity to say I told ya so


----------



## Uberfunitis

Bpr2 said:


> Guess what. Turns out the driver of the auto car was a felon hired by uber.


Yea, I have seen that reported and it makes you really question Ubers background check system. I envision all of us having to have our checks redone in the near future and knowing Uber they will just randomly knock us offline for a period of time until it is done.



iheartuber said:


> I am not saying robots are more dangerous than humans- just not safer than humans. And certainly not perfect as claimed.
> 
> But I do like a good opportunity to say I told ya so


I don't know many who are saying machines are perfect, they are of course only as good as their programing.


----------



## LA_Native

iheartuber said:


> I am not saying robots are more dangerous than humans- just not safer than humans. And certainly not perfect as claimed.


So, you're saying computers/robots are equally dangerous/safe as humans? Please, quote exactly where the makers/designers, Uber, Google, and/or Waymo have claimed autonomous cars are perfect or will respond perfectly to real-world driving situations.



iheartuber said:


> But I do like a good opportunity to say I told ya so


Yeah, but stating the obvious is hardly back-slapping worthy, IMO. I mean, I certainly expected that autonomous cars wouldn't be able to avoid all mistakes made by human pedestrians/drivers.



Uberfunitis said:


> I don't know many who are saying machines are perfect, they are of course only as good as their programing.


I do. Those who enjoy "being right" so much, that they manufacture straw-man (person?) arguments to which they reply.


----------



## iheartuber

Uberfunitis said:


> Yea, I have seen that reported and it makes you really question Ubers background check system. I envision all of us having to have our checks redone in the near future and knowing Uber they will just randomly knock us offline for a period of time until it is done.


Uber's background check only goes back a few years meaning if you got out of jail, but have been out for a little while, Uber will gladly hire you.

Depending on how liberal you are, you might look at that and say "see? Everyone deserves a second chance"



Uberfunitis said:


> I don't know many who are saying machines are perfect, they are of course only as good as their programing.


Every supporter of robot cars on this board is practically saying robots can do no wrong.


----------



## Uberfunitis

iheartuber said:


> Every supporter of robot cars on this board is practically saying robots can do no wrong.


I am a big supporter of SDC and I fully expect that there will be incidents where people get hurt or killed along the way. I do not think that a human driving would prevent those same accidents from happening either.


----------



## iheartuber

LA_Native said:


> So, you're saying computers/robots are equally dangerous/safe as humans? Please, quote exactly where the makers/designers, Uber, Google, and/or Waymo have claimed autonomous cars are perfect or will respond perfectly to real-world driving situations.
> 
> Yeah, but stating the obvious is hardly back-slapping worthy, IMO. I mean, I certainly expected that autonomous cars wouldn't be able to avoid all mistakes made by human pedestrians/drivers.
> 
> I do. Those who enjoy "being right" so much, that they manufacture straw-man (person?) arguments to which they reply.


Bottom line- will this set the robot driver revolution back? I think so

Want proof? Wait and see


----------



## LA_Native

The anti-autonomous crowd seem to be lead largely by self-serving interests and rely on emotion and hysterics to "win" discussions. I know of no designer/programmer who has said that autonomous cars will behave/respond perfectly in all real-world scenarios, and while the anti-autonomous car crowd is big on making claims, they're minuscule on producing data to support their claims. 

I'm pretty neutral on self driving cars -- doubt I'd ever own one. And I'm in no rush to see them being used in Taxi/Rideshare, but I think hysterics is just poor form.


----------



## iheartuber

LA_Native said:


> The anti-autonomous crowd seem to be lead largely by self-serving interests and rely on emotion and hysterics to "win" discussions. I know of know of no designer/programmer who has said that autonomous cars will behave/respond perfectly in all real-world scenarios.


It's not losing my job to a robot that bugs me. It's losing my freedom to drive at all, which is really the ultimate goal of the robot loving crowd.

It's the idea that humans are too stupid to take care of themselves so someone must take care of them

My self-serving interests are not my job- they are my freedom in this country


----------



## LA_Native

iheartuber said:


> It's not losing my job to a robot that bugs me. It's losing my freedom to drive at all, which is really the ultimate goal of the robot loving crowd.
> 
> It's the idea that humans are too stupid to take care of themselves so someone must take care of them
> 
> My self-serving interests are not my job- they are my freedom in this country


That's understandable. I'm also against what has been reported about Uber and self driving cars -- they want to curb or eliminate private individuals ownership of them.


----------



## JimKE

Bpr2 said:


> Guess what. Turns out the driver of the auto car was a felon hired by uber.


Yep. Served almost 4 years in prison for Robbery. When he got out, he apparently legally changed his name.

So a convicted Uber felon kills an innocent pedestrian.


----------



## Wonkytonk

ntcindetroit said:


> According to news briefing, the pedestrian was crossing from center median from west to east on Mill Ave.


There were three interesting things in this video. The first was the officer's Freudian slip in calling the pedestrian the victim, and than changing it to the pedestrian. The second was when he was asked to describe what he saw in the video, and he notes that it shows the pedestrian approaching the vehicle. So despite the pedestrian being in sight of the vehicle the vehicle did not attempt to slow down, as that officer noted in the answer to another question when he said there was currently no indication that the car was slowing down.

There are clearly flaws with the self driving software. Frankly I would lean towards calling that negligence on uber's programming part, and hardware outfitting of the sensing systems on that car, but I would have to see the video before deciding one way or another. Frankly if the pedestrian was within sight of the car, which it was since it's in video from the car, and the car did not apply the brakes in any significant way, or attempt to veer into the next lane to avoid the impact, that to me is an immediate and substantial fail of the systems running that vehicle.

I'm basing that on the information currently available and that decision may change, but it isn't based on hysterics in any way shape or form.


----------



## iheartuber

LA_Native said:


> That's understandable. I'm also against what has been reported about Uber and self driving cars -- they want to curb or eliminate private individuals ownership of them.


It's not uber who wants to eliminate private ownership- they don't care, they just want to squeeze in a few bucks wherever they can

The real evil mofos are the people who will profit from the elimination of car ownership.

But here's the thing they don't get: it's REALLY hard to take away that much freedom from people. How far will people be pushed before they push back?



Wonkytonk said:


> There were three interesting things in this video. The first was the officer's Freudian slip in calling the pedestrian the victim, and than changing it to the pedestrian. The second was when he was asked to describe what he saw in the video, and he notes that it shows the pedestrian approaching the vehicle. So despite the pedestrian being in sight of the vehicle the vehicle did not attempt to slow down, as that officer noted in the answer to another question when he said there was currently no indication that the car was slowing down.
> 
> There are clearly flaws with the self driving software. Frankly I would lean towards calling that negligence on uber's programming part, and hardware outfitting of the sensing systems on that car, but I would have to see the video before deciding one way or another. Frankly if the pedestrian was within sight of the car, which it was since it's in video from the car, and the car did not apply the brakes in any significant way, or attempt to veer into the next lane to avoid the impact, that to me is an immediate and substantial fail of the systems running that vehicle.
> 
> I'm basing that on the information currently available and that decision may change, but it isn't based on hysterics in any way shape or form.


Finally someone talks sense.

Agree with this and will add one thing that perhaps the pedestrian assumed the car would see her, and either slow down stop or swerve. Actually, the operating system in theory should have done exactly that. Looks like a software fail to me.


----------



## Wonkytonk

iheartuber said:


> But here's the thing they don't get: it's REALLY hard to take away that much freedom from people. How far will people be pushed before they push back?


People will be slowly conditioned to accept it. For example you might see city centers, especially highly congested ones instituting regulations which bars all cars not autonomous during a certain time frame, and then gradually making it full time.

US citizens love their cars so I tend to agree with you any blatant moves will bring down the wrath of American citizens against the government trying to push it.


----------



## iheartuber

Wonkytonk said:


> People will be slowly conditioned to accept it. For example you might see city centers, especially highly congested ones instituting regulations which bars all cars not autonomous during a certain time frame, and then gradually making it full time.
> 
> US citizens love their cars so I tend to agree with you any blatant moves will bring down the wrath of American citizens against the government trying to push it.


America cannot even accept the metric system, they're gonna accept this?

It's true that people can be slowly conditioned to accept certain things but in this case the only "elimination of car ownership" that can possibly happen is if people have the choice to own a car or not and more people decide they don't want one.

But to fully eliminate car ownership? Ha!


----------



## LA_Native

iheartuber said:


> It's not uber who wants to eliminate private ownership- they don't care, they just want to squeeze in a few bucks wherever they can
> 
> The real evil mofos are the people who will profit from the elimination of car ownership.


Wouldn't Uber profit from the elimination of private car ownership?


----------



## Uberfunitis

iheartuber said:


> America cannot even accept the metric system, they're gonna accept this?
> 
> It's true that people can be slowly conditioned to accept certain things but in this case the only "elimination of car ownership" that can possibly happen is if people have the choice to own a car or not and more people decide they don't want one.
> 
> But to fully eliminate car ownership? Ha!


As the government likes to point out often driving a vehicle is not a right, it is a privilege.


----------



## iheartuber

Uberfunitis said:


> As the government likes to point out often driving a vehicle is not a right, it is a privilege.


Telling someone they are only allowed to drive if they follow rules (stop signs, speed limits, pay for insurance,etc) is one thing.

Telling them that NO MATTER WHAT they will never have that privilege ever again is completely different.


----------



## LA_Native

"The *Uber *was ahh...the *vehicle *was a Volvo again; it was a self-driving vehicle..."
First the cop calls the car an "Uber" but then _suddenly _changes to "vehicle."

Sooooo suspicious. Freudian slip?


----------



## Uberfunitis

iheartuber said:


> Telling someone they are only allowed to drive if they follow rules (stop signs, speed limits, pay for insurance,etc) is one thing.
> 
> Telling them that NO MATTER WHAT they will never have that privilege ever again is completely different.


If introduced slowly and non confrontationally I think people would loose much of that resistance to the idea provided the SDC did not limit their movements any more than a vehicle did. You would more than likely have closed tracks where enthusiests could drive like in the old days. However as long as the SDC are convenient and cheap I don't see that much of a push back from it over time.


----------



## Wonkytonk

iheartuber said:


> America cannot even accept the metric system, they're gonna accept this?
> 
> It's true that people can be slowly conditioned to accept certain things but in this case the only "elimination of car ownership" that can possibly happen is if people have the choice to own a car or not and more people decide they don't want one.
> 
> But to fully eliminate car ownership? Ha!


More people in city centers with excellent public commuting options are deciding just that.

They're not really part of my cohort, but it seems to be acceptable with theirs, and with time I think in concentrated-ish areas more and more people will make that decision, but currently frankly the public commuting options are dismal.

Most people would make the decision to keep their cars for the foreseeable future. I would think my lifetime for sure. I mean if George Jetson gets to keep his flying car than [email protected] Dang it you ain't touching mine! Not yet you're not!


----------



## Uberfunitis

Wonkytonk said:


> There were three interesting things in this video. The first was the officer's Freudian slip in calling the pedestrian the victim, and than changing it to the pedestrian. The second was when he was asked to describe what he saw in the video, and he notes that it shows the pedestrian approaching the vehicle. So despite the pedestrian being in sight of the vehicle the vehicle did not attempt to slow down, as that officer noted in the answer to another question when he said there was currently no indication that the car was slowing down.
> 
> There are clearly flaws with the self driving software. Frankly I would lean towards calling that negligence on uber's programming part, and hardware outfitting of the sensing systems on that car, but I would have to see the video before deciding one way or another. Frankly if the pedestrian was within sight of the car, which it was since it's in video from the car, and the car did not apply the brakes in any significant way, or attempt to veer into the next lane to avoid the impact, that to me is an immediate and substantial fail of the systems running that vehicle.
> 
> I'm basing that on the information currently available and that decision may change, but it isn't based on hysterics in any way shape or form.


I actually found it kind of telling that he went back and corrected himself over calling the pedestrian the victim. To me that indicates that it is not clear cut who is at fault in his mind at least.


----------



## LA_Native

Victim only denotes one who harmed as a result of some action. The objective definition of "victim" neither conveys nor assigns fault to any party.


----------



## iheartuber

Uberfunitis said:


> If introduced slowly and non confrontationally I think people would loose much of that resistance to the idea provided the SDC did not limit their movements any more than a vehicle did. You would more than likely have closed tracks where enthusiests could drive like in the old days. However as long as the SDC are convenient and cheap I don't see that much of a push back from it over time.


That's the thing: when you factor in the costs involved in maintaining a car, let alone a FLEET of cars, it really can't be THAT cheap. So you should probably put the idea of "cheap" off the table.


----------



## Wonkytonk

Uberfunitis said:


> I actually found it kind of telling that he went back and corrected himself over calling the pedestrian the victim. To me that indicates that it is not clear cut who is at fault in his mind at least.


Or using the trusted standard of Occam's Razor that indicates that he thinks what he actually stated, that the car is at fault, but can't say so right now.


----------



## Uberfunitis

iheartuber said:


> That's the thing: when you factor in the costs involved in maintaining a car, let alone a FLEET of cars, it really can't be THAT cheap. So you should probably put the idea of "cheap" off the table.


In the short term it will be expensive but over time prices will drop. I am not as concerned with Ubers SDC as I am with mainstream SDC when everyone that wants one has their own and perhaps even networks those vehicles to a company like uber when they are not in use.


----------



## Wonkytonk

And yet it meant enough to that officer to actively select to de-emphasize it by actively switching to the term the pedestrian. It's clear the officer thought the term the victim was in fact assigning blame. 

And what's ridiculously interesting about it is that after having viewed the relevant video, "victim" was his go to term.


----------



## Uberfunitis

Wonkytonk said:


> Or using the trusted standard of Occam's Razor that indicates that he thinks what he actually stated, that the car is at fault, but can't say so right now.


Perhaps but than again in my experience police are used to calling anyone who gets hurt a victim and it really means something if they walk that back. It very well could be that they are already feeling pressure from Ubers legal team.


----------



## Wonkytonk

Uberfunitis said:


> It very well could be that they are already feeling pressure from Ubers legal team.


I doubt it's uber's legal team it's more likely local government afraid of that, or afraid of losing some monetary gain they feel they're currently gaining from Uber, or perhaps even long term financial gain from the current relationship.


----------



## LA_Native

Uber will have to maintain a fleet of autonomous cars that are ADA compliant (hydraulic ramps), as well as personnel to assist loading handicapped people into the car. Be interesting see if they can make all that cost-effective.


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4

LA_Native said:


> Uber will have to maintain a fleet of autonomous cars that are ADA compliant (hydraulic ramps), as well as personnel to assist loading handicapped people into the car. Be interesting see if they can make all that cost-effective.


Not at current rates...

It will probobly be closer to taxi rates if you ask me.


----------



## Uberfunitis

I don't think Uber will be the future of SDC they are simply a stepping stone. It will eventually be individual owners or co-ops of individual owners IMO


----------



## iheartuber

LA_Native said:


> Uber will have to maintain a fleet of autonomous cars that are ADA compliant (hydraulic ramps), as well as personnel to assist loading handicapped people into the car. Be interesting see if they can make all that cost-effective.


The short answer: doubtful!


----------



## LA_Native

Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> Not at current rates...
> 
> It will probobly be closer to taxi rates if you ask me.


Agreed.

Then there'd still be a market for "rideshare" services, and they'd go the way of taxi cabs. Unless, they get laws changed to outlaw rideshare. Would be ironic.



iheartuber said:


> The short answer: doubtful!


I'm skeptical too. But then again, I thought no one would pay for ringtones on their cells. lol


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Bart McCoy said:


> We don't have the facts that the Uber car didn't swerve. Off break, the one who died was in the wrong. You can't say a regular human driver could have avoided this so far
> 
> No, what I'm saying is, even not about the Uber vehicle, even a regular human driver in a regular car may have not been able to avoid this, that's what folks in this topic aren't understanding, they just quick to lay blame to Uber, even though you just posted a link to an article that says Uber is most likely not at fault............which is most likely the case
> 
> thank you. Just because its computer driven does not make the car a super hero. Doesn't mean it can prevent everything thrown at it, like literally, if she abruptly walked out into the street not at a crosswalk, not sure how a car supposed to break from 40mph to zero in 8inches
> 
> Ah okay, so you saying idiots don't exist. Good to know
> 
> Where is this regulation that says you must make an attempt, even if you possibly don't have a chance? I'd like to see it. Link me to a study where a pedestrian was at fault, but a driver was charged for manslaughter because they didn't attempt to swerve or otherwise endanger somebody else or property (which happens when you make quick swerve at moving speeds)
> 
> They expect Uber cars to wear a cape and swoop in and save every person from dying, unreal


not only is it common sense but this is one of the first things you are taught in driving school

quit acting stupid to try to justify your point


----------



## KenLV

ntcindetroit said:


> Ironically, the woman was killed where the sign says "YIELD TO BIKES".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either the Uber can't read the sign in dark or she and her bike were invisible to the Uber Safe Driver.


That's for bike riders in the BIKE LANE and cars TURNING, not for an idiot stepping out with their bike into TRAFFIC.


----------



## driverdoug

I wonder if the SDC had its lights on. It’s very hard to not see a bicycle traveling across your path. The human driver didn’t see the cyclist either. This is a huge fail for the technology


----------



## Bart McCoy

Wonkytonk said:


> There are clearly flaws with the self driving software. Frankly I would lean towards calling that negligence on uber's programming part, and hardware outfitting of the sensing systems on that car, but I would have to see the video before deciding one way or another. Frankly if the pedestrian was within sight of the car, which it was since it's in video from the car, and the car did not apply the brakes in any significant way, or attempt to veer into the next lane to avoid the impact, that to me is an immediate and substantial fail of the systems running that vehicle.
> 
> I'm basing that on the information currently available and that decision may change, but it isn't based on hysterics in any way shape or form.


yeah, from what we have available, but to be honest, we simply don't know what the car did or not do for sure. we should surely wait to get all that info before blaming Uber. But even before that, the person (who I believe was homeless, which I'm only pointing out because they have known to be careless and often many have mental issues) simply walked out in front of a moving vehicle. Nobody in their right mind should walk out into the roadway outside of a crosswalk without 1st checking for traffic. Cars have the right of way with no crosswalk



iheartuber said:


> Agree with this and will add one thing that perhaps the pedestrian assumed the car would see her, and either slow down stop or swerve. Actually, the operating system in theory should have done exactly that. Looks like a software fail to me.


Right, so a pedestrian just assumed a car should jam on their brakes or swerve into a tree to avoid hitting them for illegally walking into the middle of traffic, that's just great



LA_Native said:


> "The *Uber *was ahh...the *vehicle *was a Volvo again; it was a self-driving vehicle..."
> First the cop calls the car an "Uber" but then _suddenly _changes to "vehicle."
> 
> Sooooo suspicious. Freudian slip?


don't think that part matters too much or has an effect on anything


----------



## driverdoug

She may not have seen the SDC if it’s headlights were off.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

they need to release the video


----------



## Uberfunitis

driverdoug said:


> She may not have seen the SDC if it's headlights were off.


That is true, I am sure that will come out during the investigation if it is the case.


----------



## Bart McCoy

uberdriverfornow said:


> not only is it common sense but this is one of the first things you are taught in driving school
> 
> quit acting stupid to try to justify your point


What are you talking about? It should be common sense not to walk in front of a moving vehicle


----------



## LA_Native

Bart McCoy said:


> don't think that part matters too much or has an effect on anything


For the most part I agree, but it does seem like that _line of thinking_ matters. As in: "the cop said 'victim,' but then switched to different a different noun ('pedestrian'). Ooooo, something sinister is afoot here."

Seems to me inconsequential changes of nouns has profound meaning to those prone to knee-jerk reactions. And unfortunately, those prone to said reactions, are in abundance in society. Ergo, we sometimes get policy born from knee-jerk reactions/hysterics rather than rational thought.


----------



## Bart McCoy

driverdoug said:


> I wonder if the SDC had its lights on. It's very hard to not see a bicycle traveling across your path. The human driver didn't see the cyclist either. This is a huge fail for the technology


Officer said the car had its lights on
Everybody is trying to find fault with Uber huh? and not the guy who walked out in front of a moving vehicle outside of a crosswalk


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Bart McCoy said:


> What are you talking about? It should be common sense not to walk in front of a moving vehicle


clearly common sense is overrated



Bart McCoy said:


> Officer said the car had its lights on
> Everybody is trying to find fault with Uber huh? and not the guy who walked out in front of a moving vehicle outside of a crosswalk


nothing to indicate the pedestrian walked out in front of the vehicle


----------



## Uberfunitis

uberdriverfornow said:


> nothing to indicate the pedestrian walked out in front of the vehicle


Are you suggesting that the SDC swerved and intentionally hit the pedestrian? I see no other way for the pedestrian to get in front of the vehicle.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Uberfunitis said:


> Are you suggesting that the SDC swerved and intentionally hit the pedestrian? I see no other way for the pedestrian to get infant of the vehicle.


it's simple, a pedestrian walks across a road outside of a crosswalk and a sdc comes around the corner and runs over the pedestrian instead of stopping


----------



## KenLV

The pedestrian failed to follow the law and ultimately is at fault:

28-793. Crossing at other than crosswalk

*A. A pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway.*

Ref: http://azbikelaw.org/articles/ped-excerpts.html

You. Are. Welcome.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Bart McCoy said:


> Officer said the car had its lights on
> Everybody is trying to find fault with Uber huh? and not the guy who walked out in front of a moving vehicle outside of a crosswalk


you're hilarious, to you, apparently we all have a right to run over all pedestrians on the road walking outside of a crosswalk


----------



## Uberfunitis

uberdriverfornow said:


> it's simple, a pedestrian walks across a road outside of a crosswalk and a sdc comes around the corner and runs over the pedestrian instead of stopping


so in other words the pedestrian walked out into the road in front of an incoming vehicle.


----------



## MHR

https://newrepublic.com/article/147553/self-driving-uber-killed-woman-whose-fault-it

*A Self-Driving Uber Killed a Woman. Whose Fault Is It?*
*The fatality in Tempe, Arizona, took place in a regulatory vacuum.*
*By MATT FORD*
*March 20, 2018*

When a driverless car kills someone, who's to blame?

That's no longer a hypothetical question. A self-driving car operated by Uber struck and killed a woman on a street in Tempe, Arizona, on Sunday night, likely marking a grim milestone for the nascent technology: the first pedestrian killed by such a car on public roads.

Police say the 49-year-old woman was walking a bike across the street, outside the crosswalk, at around 10 p.m. The Uber was traveling at 40 miles per hour in autonomous mode, with an operator in the driver's seat, when she was hit. Police have not yet determined who was at fault. (The car apparently didn't slow down, and the operator didn't appear impaired.) Nonetheless, Uber immediately suspended its self-driving tests in Arizona and nationwide, as many in the tech industry reacted with alarm.


















There's an ongoing debate about legal liability when it comes to collisions in which an autonomous vehicle harms someone else through no fault of that person. Would the blame lie with the self-driving car's owner, manufacturer, a combination of the two, or someone else? In their quest to become the Mecca of self-driving cars, Arizona regulators have largely left those questions unanswered, _The New York Times _reported last year:

Arizona officials said the public is essentially protected by basic rules that require a licensed driver somewhere in the driverless car. They added that they planned to take a back seat to the experts when it comes to rule-making. The state insurance regulator, for example, said he would wait for the insurance industry to guide regulators on liability policies for driverless cars, amid questions about who is responsible in a crash if the car isn't driven by a human.

This _laissez-faire_ regulatory strategy was designed to entice Silicon Valley companies looking to test products outside of California, which has taken a more cautious approach to the new technology. It worked. _The Times_ reported that Ford, GM, Google, Intel, and Uber are all testing self-driving cars in Arizona. Exact figures are sparse, but there are at least hundreds of driverless vehicles in use in the state.

"What we see in today's sad news is another example of tech experimentation outpacing thoughtful regulation," Elizabeth Joh, a U.C. Davis law professor who specializes in technology and the law, told me on Monday. Questions about who should bear legal responsibility for self-driving car accidents, she said, can draw upon tort law, which wrestles with questions about liability and negligence.

In a Brookings Institution paper published in 2014, UCLA law professor John Villasenor argued that product-liability law offered the best guidance for determining legal fault with an emerging technology like self-driving cars. "Products liability has been one of the most dynamic fields of law since the middle of the 20th century," he wrote, pointing to the courts' flexibility in adapting old doctrines to new commercial goods.

These legal approaches pertain only to civil proceedings-lawsuits, in other words. What if a self-driving car commits the equivalent of vehicular manslaughter? "criminal penalties are a different story," Claire Cain Miller wrote in the _Times_ in 2014, "for the simple reason that robots cannot be charged with a crime." As Ryan Calo, a robotics law expert at the University of Washington School of Law, told her, "Criminal law is going to be looking for a guilty mind, a particular mental state-should this person have known better? If you're not driving the car, it's going to be difficult."

Though it lost ground to Arizona and other states on hardware testing, California is still breaking new ground in the legal front. In December, the state department of motor vehicles rejected a GM-backed proposal that would shift liability from the companies onto the consumer if a self-driving car's sensors weren't properly maintained. But in March, the state took a step in Arizona's direction, repealing a rule that required someone to be in the driver's seat during autonomous tests. The revision won't go into effect until April.

Villasenor urged Congress to leave this issue to the states, noting that disputes over liability for car manufacturer defects have "always been the province of state courts applying state tort remedies." But Hill legislators may have different ideas. The Republican-controlled House of Representative last September passed a billsupported by manufacturers that "would make it so that states can no longer write legislation that the auto industry considers restrictive." Instead, the law would allow federal regulators to "make the guidelines more uniform"-and, presumably, more favorable to the auto industry than in some of the most restrictive states. The Senate has yet to take up the measure.

This was not Uber's first accident involving a self-driving car in Tempe. One year ago, a woman driving a Honda CRV turned into an intersection and hit a self-driving Uber Volvo, which flipped and damaged two other cars. A Tempe police report found differing accounts of blame among drivers and participants in the crash, none of whom were seriously injured.

There are a number of arguments in favor of driverless cars. They will reduce traffic jamsand cut pollution. They're also theoretically safer compared to human drivers, who are sometimes intoxicated, distracted by their smartphone, or otherwise reckless. Some commentators opined that autonomous-vehicle research shouldn't be scaled back when tens of thousands of Americans are killed by human-operated cars each year.









Joh noted that focusing on those deaths misses the more immediate point. "This is the deployment of a new technology, with a host of foreseeable issues and questions," she explained. "The Uber incident should force states to reconsider what safeguards they should have in place beforehand."

According to the National Association of State Legislatures, 21 states have laws regulating self-driving vehicles in some way. They run the gamut from wide-open regulatory regimes like Arizona to stricter regulations like those in Nevada, which
requires that two operators in a self-driving car during a test on public roads. The car must also be accompanied by a pilot vehicle driving directly ahead of it. While it's impossible to know if these precautions would have prevented what happened in Tempe, they could reduce the chance of similar accidents in the future.

That further regulations may be useful isn't a slight against self-driving cars as a whole. Even the most utopian tech evangelists must have known that autonomous vehicles would eventually be involved in fatal accidents. Silicon Valley and the auto industry have a responsibility to make these cars as safe as possible, but the onus is also on state legislators to build a regulatory landscape that protects everyone else.

Matt Ford is a staff writer at _The New Republic_.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

lol @ all these people that think apparently we all have a right to run over all pedestrians on the road walking outside of a crosswalk



Uberfunitis said:


> so in other words the pedestrian walked out into the road in front of an incoming vehicle.


not if the vehicle wasn't in front of them when they started walking


----------



## Uberfunitis

uberdriverfornow said:


> lol @ all these people that think apparently we all have a right to run over all pedestrians on the road walking outside of a crosswalk
> 
> not if the vehicle wasn't in front of them when they started walking


They have to be in front of the vehicle to be hit by the front of the vehicle. They had to walk to that point that is in front of the vehicle unless the vehicle swerved out of their lane of travel.

I am not saying that anyone has the right to run over anyone, but I am saying that if you put yourself in a dangerous situation like walking across a street outside of a designated cross walk than you are putting yourself in real danger and share in the responsibility of what happens.


----------



## ntcindetroit

KenLV said:


> That's for bike riders in the BIKE LANE and cars TURNING, not for an idiot stepping out with their bike into TRAFFIC.


The officer said the victim was clearly crossed the Mill Ave from west to east(ie. from driver or vehicle's left side to right side. The damage on the Uber or Volvo was clearly on the right side or right front corner. How to step from the center median to be hit by the right side of the Volvo? Self damaging car?


----------



## JimKE

The facts will come out in the investigation, and that's going to take several weeks. The toxicology reports for both the deceased and the Uber driver will take several weeks at least, and the investigation won't be finished until those reports come in...at the earliest. The sergeant doing the press availability might have misspoken on a thing or two, but none of that matters. What matters is the conclusions of the investigation.

For Uber, there are several key issues here. One is whether the SDC _failed to detect_ the pedestrian, another is the _lack of response by the SDC_, and another is the *lack of response of the driver*.

*But another BIG issue for Uber is this guy's criminal record.* He did almost 4 years in state prison for Robbery, but Uber apparently didn't pick that up during his background check.

For the vast majority of us who haven't done hard time, you should know that Robbery is the third most-serious crime, behind only murder and rape. So that's a BIG fail for Uber's background checking system, and an excellent arguing point for critics who want Uber/Lyft to use fingerprints in their background check system.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

arizona is a real shithole now that i know they got these sdcs on their streets without any drivers in them

i wont be going be goin there any time soon


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Uberfunitis said:


> They have to be in front of the vehicle to be hit by the front of the vehicle. They had to walk to that point that is in front of the vehicle unless the vehicle swerved out of their lane of travel.
> 
> I am not saying that anyone has the right to run over anyone, but I am saying that if you put yourself in a dangerous situation like walking across a street outside of a designated cross walk than you are putting yourself in real danger and share in the responsibility of what happens.


there is nothing to indicate that this person saw a car coming and walked in front of it

you just want it to be that way


----------



## Uberfunitis

uberdriverfornow said:


> there is nothing to indicate that this person saw a car coming and walked in front of it
> 
> you just want it to be that way


I honestly don't care if it is that way or not. What the person walking saw does not change anything especially if they are not paying attention. Again we at this point have no idea what happened.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

JimKE said:


> The facts will come out in the investigation, and that's going to take several weeks. The toxicology reports for both the deceased and the Uber driver will take several weeks at least, and the investigation won't be finished until those reports come in...at the earliest. The sergeant doing the press availability might have misspoken on a thing or two, but none of that matters. What matters is the conclusions of the investigation.
> 
> For Uber, there are several key issues here. One is whether the SDC _failed to detect_ the pedestrian, another is the _lack of response by the SDC_, and another is the *lack of response of the driver*.
> 
> *But another BIG issue for Uber is this guy's criminal record.* He did almost 4 years in state prison for Robbery, but Uber apparently didn't pick that up during his background check.
> 
> For the vast majority of us who haven't done hard time, you should know that Robbery is the third most-serious crime, behind only murder and rape. So that's a BIG fail for Uber's background checking system, and an excellent arguing point for critics who want Uber/Lyft to use fingerprints in their background check system.


whether or not this guy is felon is irrelevant

these cars are not suoposed to have accidents because they are supposed to be better than drivers when in fact it would appear this car acted just like a distracted driver


----------



## Uberfunitis

uberdriverfornow said:


> in fact it would appear this car acted just like a distracted driver


We do not know that at all at this point. We still to this point do not know how far out the car was when the person crossed its path outside of a designated crossing.


----------



## Wonkytonk

Bart McCoy said:


> ...we should surely wait to get all that info before blaming Uber.
> 
> But even before that, the person (who I believe was homeless, which I'm only pointing out because they have known to be careless and often many have mental issues)


As to your first statement here I've said often enough that we don't have all of the information, but the information we do have is completely negative towards uber and it's autonomous car software at this point.

As to your second point that strikes me as victim blaming especially considering the police have identified that the victim pedestrian was in sight of the autonomous car prior to being hit by that car, and that the car seems to have made no effort to avoid an impact with it's victim. It neither seemed to brake, or veer to avoid an impact with its victim.

And let me repeat that because it bears repeating, the victim was in sight of the autonomous vehicle being tracked by that vehicle, at least one would assume that pedestrian was being tracked by that vehicle. Frankly if it wasn't tracking its victim given the stated circumstances so far then negligence in programming that vehicle seems obvious to the point of absurdity to declare otherwise given the current evidence.



Bart McCoy said:


> What are you talking about? It should be common sense not to walk in front of a moving vehicle


It's also common sense that if a pedestrian is in view heading your way that you a the driver would make adjustments to avoid an impact with the pedestrian, and yet with this autonomous vehicle and it's programming there is no indication thus far that it actually did that, in fact, quite the opposite.


----------



## JimKE

uberdriverfornow said:


> whether or not this guy is felon is irrelevant


Correct...*for the purposes of the accident investigation*, his past is irrelevant.

However, in Uber's ongoing war with the taxi industry, his criminal record is very relevant. One of the things the taxi industry has said is that Uber/Lyft drivers should also have to have fingerprints taken, as taxi drivers are in many localities. Uber's counter-argument (and mine) has always been that they cross-check multiple ways and they know who they are doing their background on.

That's a solid argument...except in this case, they apparently had no clue who they were hiring. And this guy is probably an Uber employee, not a independent contractor.


----------



## LA_Native

Yeah, who needs all the info, when you have an agenda and a narrative you're unwilling to change, right? Right.


----------



## Wonkytonk

uberdriverfornow said:


> these cars are not supposed to have accidents because they are supposed to be better than drivers when in fact it would appear this car acted just like a distracted driver


Agreed, but it's worse than that actually this autonomous car driven by Uber software doesn't appear to have taken even basic fundamental accident avoidance steps adolescents are taught when learning to drive.

This accident, with the evidence so far apparent, points to a colossal failure on the part of uber's car software programmers.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Uberfunitis said:


> I honestly don't care if it is that way or not. What the person walking saw does not change anything especially if they are not paying attention. Again we at this point have no idea what happened.


so the pedestrian wasn't paying attention to what exactly??


----------



## LA_Native

This accident, with the evidence so far apparent, points to a colossal failure on the part of pedestrian. 
Whoa, that was pretty easy.


----------



## KenLV

uberdriverfornow said:


> lol @ all these people that think apparently we all have a right to run over all pedestrians on the road walking outside of a crosswalk


Strawman...

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman


----------



## Uberfunitis

uberdriverfornow said:


> so the pedestrian wasn't paying attention to what exactly??


Potentially a vehicle traveling at speed towards them when they do not have the right away. Either they were not paying attention, or they were basically daring the vehicle to hit them and I have seen that on multiple occasions before.


----------



## Wonkytonk

Victim blaming in an attempt to avoid culpability for what appears to be a negligent lapse in Uber's autonomous car software is not in any way cool, or acceptable. 

The car "saw" the victim, and didn't brake, and didn't veer to avoid the collision, and subsequently killed the victim. It did that because apparently the software was not coded sufficiently to avoid that consequence, and that is totally an uber programming negligence issue. 

That's a fundamental failure on an enormous scale.


----------



## Bart McCoy

JimKE said:


> For Uber, there are several key issues here. One is whether the SDC _failed to detect_ the pedestrian, another is the _lack of response by the SDC_, and another is the *lack of response of the driver*.
> 
> *But another BIG issue for Uber is this guy's criminal record.* He did almost 4 years in state prison for Robbery, but Uber apparently didn't pick that up during his background check.
> 
> .


We don't know what the car detected or what it did or did not do before striking the pedestrian

I don't know why you are even bringing up his background which has absolutely nothing to do with this case. Yeah its a knock on Uber's background checks but that's not what this topic is about



uberdriverfornow said:


> there is nothing to indicate that this person saw a car coming and walked in front of it
> 
> you just want it to be that way





Wonkytonk said:


> As to your second point that strikes me as victim blaming especially considering the police have identified that the victim pedestrian was in sight of the autonomous car prior to being hit by that car, and that the car seems to have made no effort to avoid an impact with it's victim. It neither seemed to brake, or veer to avoid an impact with its victim.
> 
> And let me repeat that because it bears repeating, the victim was in sight of the autonomous vehicle being tracked by that vehicle, at least one would assume that pedestrian was being tracked by that vehicle. Frankly if it wasn't tracking its victim given the stated circumstances so far then negligence in programming that vehicle seems obvious to the point of absurdity to declare otherwise given the current evidence.
> 
> It's also common sense that if a pedestrian is in view heading your way that you a the driver would make adjustments to avoid an impact with the pedestrian, and yet with this autonomous vehicle and it's programming there is no indication thus far that it actually did that, in fact, quite the opposite.


Here's the problem, you're saying an Uber vehicle, should be held to a higher standard, than say me driving the truck. Now that's true from a business perspective, but not a legal perspective. Just because the car is computer controlled, you can't make laws upon it forcing it to save humans, rather than a normal human driving the car. Sure it may be a knock on Uber's self driving future, but legally, the uber car shouldn't be no more at fault than if a regular human only was driving and not able to deter from hitting the pedestrian. After all, the pedestrian is in the wrong. Clearly. You can't expect a human or computer to be able to dodge anybody that gets in your way.

If a normal human couldn't avoid the accident, it doesn't matter that a computer driven one couldn't either. We all get the same laws applied to us.

Again, if none of this applies, then I can just got walk in front of a moving car this afternoon, sue them for not being able to stop there car withing 2 feet, and become a millionaire in 3 months. Then wash, rinse, repeat. The person at fault has to be responsible for their actions!!!


----------



## Uberfunitis

Wonkytonk said:


> Agreed, but it's worse than that actually this autonomous car driven by Uber software doesn't appear to have taken even basic fundamental accident avoidance steps adolescents are taught when learning to drive.
> 
> This accident, with the evidence so far apparent, points to a colossal failure on the part of uber's car software programmers.


We have heard that the person is seen crossing in front of the vehicle they have not said how much lead time that vehicle had or at what distance they person was from the vehicle while crossing in front of the vehicle.


----------



## KenLV

ntcindetroit said:


> The officer said the victim was clearly crossed the Mill Ave from west to east(ie. from driver or vehicle's left side to right side. The damage on the Uber or Volvo was clearly on the right side or right front corner. How to step from the center median to be hit by the right side of the Volvo? Self damaging car?


As I already stated...

https://uberpeople.net/threads/uber-pulls-self-driving-cars.248176/page-8#post-3747726


----------



## LA_Native

lol @ all these people that think apparently we all have a right to walk where ever we want on any portion of he street whenever we want. 
Check, and mate. Yes!


----------



## Bart McCoy

Wonkytonk said:


> Victim blaming in an attempt to avoid culpability for what appears to be a negligent lapse in Uber's autonomous car software is not in any way cool, or acceptable.
> 
> The car "saw" the victim, and didn't brake, and didn't veer to avoid the collision, and subsequently killed the victim. It did that because apparently the software was not coded sufficiently to avoid that consequence, and that is totally an uber programming negligence issue.
> 
> That's a fundamental failure on an enormous scale.


Its not victim blaming, its called how the law works in the US. Cases are solved by who is at fault. Clearly the pedestrian was here. The car can try to stop, but you can't blame the driving for hitting you because you jumped in the street without looking with a car coming outside of a crosswalk , not giving the car ample time to stop or deter from hitting you.

Its real simply folks. Don't want to get hit? Look both ways before crossing the street, and NEVER cross when cars are coming. Not hard


----------



## Wonkytonk

Uberfunitis said:


> They have to be in front of the vehicle to be hit by the front of the vehicle. They had to walk to that point that is in front of the vehicle unless the vehicle swerved out of their lane of travel.


Exactly.

See you do get it. If the victim is in front of the vehicle, and is hit by the victim when the camera shows that the victim was in front of the vehicle, and the vehicle took no action to avoid the collision, and subsequently hits, and kills the victim then, well, yeah, there's a serious problem with that vehicle, and it's software.


----------



## Uberfunitis

Wonkytonk said:


> Victim blaming in an attempt to avoid culpability for what appears to be a negligent lapse in Uber's autonomous car software is not in any way cool, or acceptable.
> 
> The car "saw" the victim, and didn't brake, and didn't veer to avoid the collision, and subsequently killed the victim. It did that because apparently the software was not coded sufficiently to avoid that consequence, and that is totally an uber programming negligence issue.
> 
> That's a fundamental failure on an enormous scale.


Again we don't know how far out the person was when they crossed the path was it just before etc. The person who was crossing the road outside of a crosswalk does have some responsibility for the incident regardless.


----------



## Bart McCoy

Wonkytonk said:


> Victim blaming in an attempt to avoid culpability for what appears to be a negligent lapse in Uber's autonomous car software is not in any way cool, or acceptable.
> 
> The car "saw" the victim, and didn't brake, and didn't veer to avoid the collision, and subsequently killed the victim. It did that because apparently the software was not coded sufficiently to avoid that consequence, and that is totally an uber programming negligence issue.
> 
> That's a fundamental failure on an enormous scale.


So you making one law for Uber, and another for citizens huh?
What if the car was not Uber (driverless), so car saw nothing (being a normal car)
Who's at fault now?????


----------



## Wonkytonk

Bart McCoy said:


> Its not victim blaming,


Sure it is. If the vehicle saw the victim, and it did in this case, and it took no action to avoid the collision with that victim, then it's the victim's fault?

That's what you're arguing. Had the vehicle attempted to avoid the collision than my opinion might be different but it didn't.



Uberfunitis said:


> Again we don't know how far out the person was when they crossed the path...


This is completely irrelevant to the facts on the ground. The car did not even make an attempt to brake or veer away to avoid the collision even though the victim was in sight and clearly approaching.

That's a serious uber autonomous vehicle software fail.


----------



## Bart McCoy

Wonkytonk said:


> Sure it is. If the vehicle saw the victim, and it did in this case, and it took no action to avoid the collision with that victim, then it's the victim's fault?
> 
> That's what you're arguing. Had the vehicle attempted to avoid the collision than my opinion might be different but it didn't.


You act like you've already investigated the case fully. You simply cannot at this point say the car did nothing. Just can't!!
You have to wait and get full evidence of what the car did and did not do.
But even if it didn't, why would Uber be to blame?
If it was me driving my car, there's no computer to blame now is there? But hows it my fault somebody jumped out in front of me? I'll never understand that part


----------



## Uberfunitis

Wonkytonk said:


> This is completely irrelevant to the facts on the ground. The care did not even make an attempt to brake or veer away to avoid the collision even though the victim was in sight and clearly approaching.
> 
> That's a serious uber autonomous vehicle software fail.


Actually we don't even know that for sure, they said that it did not appear to have but they are still investigating meaning they are not sure what happened at this time.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Bart McCoy said:


> Its not victim blaming, its called how the law works in the US. Cases are solved by who is at fault. Clearly the pedestrian was here. The car can try to stop, but you can't blame the driving for hitting you because you jumped in the street without looking with a car coming outside of a crosswalk , not giving the car ample time to stop or deter from hitting you.
> 
> Its real simply folks. Don't want to get hit? Look both ways before crossing the street, and NEVER cross when cars are coming. Not hard


quit saying the victim was clearly at fault when you have no idea


----------



## Uberfunitis

Wonkytonk said:


> Sure it is. If the vehicle saw the victim, and it did in this case, and it took no action to avoid the collision with that victim, then it's the victim's fault?
> 
> That's what you're arguing. Had the vehicle attempted to avoid the collision than my opinion might be different but it didn't.
> 
> This is completely irrelevant to the facts on the ground. The car did not even make an attempt to brake or veer away to avoid the collision even though the victim was in sight and clearly approaching.
> 
> That's a serious uber autonomous vehicle software fail.


You walk out in front of a moving vehicle especially outside of a legal crossing you are putting your life in serious jeopardy especially at night.

As to the car swerving I am not even sure that would be a good idea even if it did have time. More lifes could be put in danger by such evasive actions. Sure it should try to slow down but it may or may not have had enough time we just dont know if it did slow or not. All they could see more than likely is that the brakes did not lock up leaving skid marks on the road.


----------



## Bart McCoy

uberdriverfornow said:


> quit saying the victim was clearly at fault when you have no idea


No idea? I have a great idea because I know how laws work. I know for a FACT The pedestrian was not in a crosswalk, the car had the right of way. This was basically like jay walking, pedestrian clearly was in the wrong. Real easy here, just look up the state laws. You do NOT need to investigate the accident, to know the laws before the accident happened


----------



## Wonkytonk

Bart McCoy said:


> We don't know what the car detected or what it did or did not do before striking the pedestrian


See that's just false on it's face. We do know that the vehicle "saw" the pedestrian approaching and took no action to avoid a collision which caused that victim her life.

As to the point of holding to a higher standard on its face that's really rather laughable since the entire premise behind autonomous vehicles is that they're better, more vigilant than human drivers, but really that's just beside the point I'm judging it on face value the car's failure to act to avoid the collision when the victim was within it's sights, which caused the death of that victim is absolutely inexcusable.


----------



## Bart McCoy

Wonkytonk said:


> See that's just false on it's face. We do know that the vehicle "saw" the pedestrian approaching and took no action to avoid a collision which caused that victim her life.
> 
> As to the point of holding to a higher standard on its face that's really rather laughable since the entire premise behind autonomous vehicles is that they're better, more vigilant than human drivers, but really that's just beside the point I'm judging it on face value the car's failure to act to avoid the collision when the victim was within it's sights, which caused the death of that victim is absolutely inexcusable.


You missed my whole point.
Its Uber's self driving business vs legal law. You totally missed what I said
And your response here says any self driving car, because they have a hero type computer, any where, should be able to avoid striking a human no matter how little time they jump out in the street in front of you. Sorry, but that just makes no sense to me


----------



## Wonkytonk

Uberfunitis said:


> You walk out in front of a moving vehicle especially outside of a legal


Not really interested in engaging you in your victim blaming.

The bottom line is that the victim was in sight of the car and the car took no action to avoid the collision as far as the evidence currently holds.

That may change in time, but currently the programming for that car is insufficient to be on the road. Uber should be prevented from running further tests until it can prove it's vehicles can avoid common situations without harming pedestrians.


----------



## Uberfunitis

Wonkytonk said:


> See that's just false on it's face. We do know that the vehicle "saw" the pedestrian approaching and took no action to avoid a collision which caused that victim her life.
> 
> As to the point of holding to a higher standard on its face that's really rather laughable since the entire premise behind autonomous vehicles is that they're better, more vigilant than human drivers, but really that's just beside the point I'm judging it on face value the car's failure to act to avoid the collision when the victim was within it's sights, which caused the death of that victim is absolutely inexcusable.


The person would have been in sight of the camera also if she just jumped out in front of the vehicle. Not saying thats what happened but they have not said how close the vehicle was when the person crossed its path yet.


----------



## LA_Native

Uberfunitis said:


> Again we don't know how far out the person was when they crossed the path was it just before etc.


What sane, non partisan person, would expect a driver to be able to take action to avoid the collision, *if *a "victim" jumped out in the path of a vehicle less than 5 feet before the car would have overtook said victim had the victim remained on the sidewalk?


----------



## Wonkytonk

Bart McCoy said:


> You missed my whole point.


No you're missing my whole point. My whole point is that the car uber programmed saw the bicycle, and the woman approaching and took no action to avoid a collision with them.

That is a fundamental failure on the part of Uber programmers.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

just to be clear, if a pedestrian steps in front of a car, of course the driver is not going to be at fault

im a driver too, and we have con artists that are known to scam by stepping in front of cars


----------



## Bart McCoy

Wonkytonk said:


> Not really interested in engaging you in your victim blaming.
> 
> The bottom line is that the victim was in sight of the car and the car took no action to avoid the collision as far as the evidence currently holds.
> 
> That may change in time, but currently the programming for that car is insufficient to be on the road. Uber should be prevented from running further tests until it can prove it's vehicles can avoid common situations without harming pedestrians.


So you don't want to engage him on the legality of all of this? You don't want to admit or address the pedestrian was in the wrong? My goodness

And you're still talking as if the investigation is over. You have NO evidence of what Ubers car did detect or not detect or didn't do. NONE. You're going completely off heresay. If I'm wrong, show me your documentation on what Uber's truck detected and did.

I'll wait..............


----------



## KenLV

uberdriverfornow said:


> there is nothing to indicate that this person saw a car coming and walked in front of it
> 
> you just want it to be that way


There is nothing to indicate that anyone here thinks...



uberdriverfornow said:


> ...we all have a right to run over all pedestrians on the road walking outside of a crosswalk


You just want it to be that way.

Further, it doesn't matter if the pedestrian saw the car or not, the onus was on her to cross legally and yield to the car.

https://uberpeople.net/threads/uber-pulls-self-driving-cars.248176/page-8#post-3747768

What would matter is if the SDC/Driver saw the pedestrian AND had sufficient time to avoid the accident. So far... "there is nothing to indicate that" either the car or driver did.

Again... "You just want it to be that way."


----------



## Uberfunitis

Wonkytonk said:


> Not really interested in engaging you in your victim blaming.


Clearly the pedestrian shares some fault regardless what the SDC did or did not do simply by illegally crossing the road.


----------



## Wonkytonk

Uberfunitis said:


> The person would have been in sight of the camera also if she just jumped out in front of the vehicle.


The officer did not state that she "jumped out in front of the vehicle" what he stated was that he saw through that footage the pedestrian approaching the vehicle.

Huge difference. You're stretching. You should probably stop that. It's not going to work with me.


----------



## transporter007

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/0...car-likely-not-at-fault-in-fatal-crash/?amp=1

The chief of the Tempe Police has told the _San Francisco Chronicle_ that Uber is likely not responsible for the Sunday evening crash that killed 49-year-old pedestrian Elaine Herzberg.

"I suspect preliminarily it appears that the Uber would likely not be at fault in this accident," said Chief Sylvia Moir.

*After viewing video captured by the Uber vehicle, Moir concluded that "it's very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode (autonomous or human-driven)*


----------



## Bart McCoy

uberdriverfornow said:


> just to be clear, if a pedestrian steps in front of a car, of course the driver is not going to be at fault
> 
> im a driver too, and we have con artists that are known to scam by stepping in front of cars


To be clear, that's exactly what happened, since the car had the right of way.
Wonky Tonk doesn't want to accept the facts though


----------



## Wonkytonk

Uberfunitis said:


> Clearly the pedestrian shares some fault regardless what the SDC did or did not do simply by illegally crossing the road.


Please fix your quote it's attributing to me something I did not state.


----------



## Uberfunitis

Wonkytonk said:


> The officer did not state that she "jumped out in front of the vehicle" what he stated was that he saw through that footage the pedestrian approaching the vehicle.
> 
> Huge difference. You're stretching. You should probably stop that. It's not going to work with me.


He did say that but he did not say with what distance and timing all this happened there is a big difference as well.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Bart McCoy said:


> No idea? I have a great idea because I know how laws work. I know for a FACT The pedestrian was not in a crosswalk, the car had the right of way. This was basically like jay walking, pedestrian clearly was in the wrong. Real easy here, just look up the state laws. You do NOT need to investigate the accident, to know the laws before the accident happened


i actually know the laws, and it's only jaywalking when there is a center divider in the street

you don't actually know the laws on jaywalking or you would know this


----------



## JimKE

Bart McCoy said:


> We don't know what the car detected or what it did or did not do before striking the pedestrian


Correct...*and that is why I used the word* *WHETHER*. We don't know WHETHER she was detected by either the SDC or the driver, nor do we know WHETHER either the SDC or the driver responded.

That's what investigations are all about -- figuring out the WHETHERS.



> I don't know why you are even bringing up his background which has absolutely nothing to do with this case.


Right I've already said that above.


> Yeah its a knock on Uber's background checks but that's not what this topic is about


If you go back and read the passage you quoted, you'll see that I said it was a separate issue from the accident itself.

A lot of people here are trying to assign blame to one of two people or to an SDC...based mostly on our own personal biases. The fact is this investigation will take several weeks and we really know only a small part of what the police know. And even they don't know enough to make those determinations at this point.

Those arguments are really kind of amusing to read, but it's getting boring.


----------



## Bart McCoy

Well there you have it.

But just look at it on face value: pedestrian crossed outside of a cross walk. Legally he has to yield to cars in the road.
Of course it looks bad for Ubers computer driven cars, but I'm talking the legal situation here, not technology


----------



## Wonkytonk

Bart McCoy said:


> Wonky Tonk doesn't want to accept the facts though


Having the right of way does not make it acceptable to run over a pedestrian you had in your sight.

This car had the pedestrian woman victim in it's sight and took no action to avoid a collision.

You're the one refusing to accept the facts on the ground as stated by the authorities in the know.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Bart McCoy said:


> To be clear, that's exactly what happened, since the car had the right of way.
> Wonky Tonk doesn't want to accept the facts though


having the right of way doesnt give you the right to mow someone down that doesnt have the right of way

but you dont have any common sense which is why you cant comprehend this


----------



## Bart McCoy

uberdriverfornow said:


> i actually know the laws, and it's only jaywalking when there is a center divider in the street
> 
> you don't actually know the laws on jaywalking or you would know this


read it again, I didn't say it was jaywalking, I clearly said "its like jaywalking". Hint the words "its like"


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Wonkytonk said:


> Having the right of way does not make it acceptable to run over a pedestrian you had in your sight.
> 
> This car had the pedestrian woman victim in it's sight and took no action to avoid a collision.
> 
> You're the one refusing to accept the facts on the ground as stated by the authorities in the know.


he has no common sense, we clearly cant talk to this guy


----------



## LA_Native

People approach approach/walk towards my car all the time as I drive 40 mph in my lane, but they stay on the sidewalk or do not cross into my path, I never nor should anyone expect me to take action to avoid a "victim" should a "victim" decide to cross the path of my car.


----------



## Wonkytonk

Uberfunitis said:


> He did say that but he did not say with what distance and timing all this happened there is a big difference as well.


Again the distance and timing are irrelevant when the car showed no signs of braking or veering to avoid the collision.

I don't care if it's one foot I expect a driver to slam on the brakes and veer away from the pedestrian.


----------



## Uberfunitis

Wonkytonk said:


> Having the right of way does not make it acceptable to run over a pedestrian you had in your sight.
> 
> This car had the pedestrian woman victim in it's sight and took no action to avoid a collision.
> 
> You're the one refusing to accept the facts on the ground as stated by the authorities in the know.


You are adding facts not stated by the authorities, having something in your sight does not indicate in any way the timing of events or what actions are appropriate given that the timing is not known.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

lol nice try with the misquote but this what i actually said



uberdriverfornow said:


> *to you*, apparently we all have a right to run over all pedestrians on the road walking outside of a crosswalk


----------



## Bart McCoy

uberdriverfornow said:


> h
> 
> but you dont have any common sense which is why you cant comprehend this


eh, watch your words buddy

I never said they have a right to mow people down, but they do have the right to not be held criminally responsible because somebody broke the law and didn't make a good decision


----------



## Uberfunitis

Wonkytonk said:


> Again the distance and timing are irrelevant when the car showed no signs of braking or veering to avoid the collision.
> 
> I don't care if it's one foot I expect a driver to slam on the brakes and veer away from the pedestrian.


What you expect of the driver and vehicle is not all that important the question is what does the law expect and at what timing and yes timing does matter because there is reaction times to account for even with SDC they can create a much more dangerous situation by reacting to quickly.


----------



## transporter007

Can we wrap-up this thread

After viewing video captured by the Uber vehicle, Police Chief Moir concluded that "it's very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode (autonomous or human-driven)

*Police chief: Uber self-driving car "likely" not at fault in fatal crash*

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/0...car-likely-not-at-fault-in-fatal-crash/?amp=1


----------



## Wonkytonk

uberdriverfornow said:


> he has no common sense, we clearly cant talk to this guy


Not with the garbage you guys are bringing to the table, hell no.

You know what might make it better? Simply acknowledge the facts on the ground.

The car "saw" the pedestrian and took no action to avoid the collision.

Because you see that's what actually happened according to the officer in that video.

Can you guys do that without blaming the victim?

See if you can do that, acknowledge the facts on the ground, over your opinions then perhaps we can have a mutually beneficial discussion on the topic, otherwise it's probably not going to happen.



Uberfunitis said:


> What you expect of the driver and vehicle is .


What I expect of the autonomous vehicle is that it at the very least it attempts to avoid collisions with pedestrians it "sees" in its path.

Which didn't happen here, which indicates to me clear negligence on the part of Uber's software team.



transporter007 said:


> Can we wrap-up this thread


Nobody is keeping you here so feel free to move on any time you like.


----------



## tohunt4me

MHR said:


> https://newrepublic.com/article/147553/self-driving-uber-killed-woman-whose-fault-it
> 
> *A Self-Driving Uber Killed a Woman. Whose Fault Is It?*
> *The fatality in Tempe, Arizona, took place in a regulatory vacuum.*
> *By MATT FORD*
> *March 20, 2018*
> 
> When a driverless car kills someone, who's to blame?
> 
> That's no longer a hypothetical question. A self-driving car operated by Uber struck and killed a woman on a street in Tempe, Arizona, on Sunday night, likely marking a grim milestone for the nascent technology: the first pedestrian killed by such a car on public roads.
> 
> Police say the 49-year-old woman was walking a bike across the street, outside the crosswalk, at around 10 p.m. The Uber was traveling at 40 miles per hour in autonomous mode, with an operator in the driver's seat, when she was hit. Police have not yet determined who was at fault. (The car apparently didn't slow down, and the operator didn't appear impaired.) Nonetheless, Uber immediately suspended its self-driving tests in Arizona and nationwide, as many in the tech industry reacted with alarm.
> View attachment 215419
> 
> 
> View attachment 215417
> 
> 
> There's an ongoing debate about legal liability when it comes to collisions in which an autonomous vehicle harms someone else through no fault of that person. Would the blame lie with the self-driving car's owner, manufacturer, a combination of the two, or someone else? In their quest to become the Mecca of self-driving cars, Arizona regulators have largely left those questions unanswered, _The New York Times _reported last year:
> 
> Arizona officials said the public is essentially protected by basic rules that require a licensed driver somewhere in the driverless car. They added that they planned to take a back seat to the experts when it comes to rule-making. The state insurance regulator, for example, said he would wait for the insurance industry to guide regulators on liability policies for driverless cars, amid questions about who is responsible in a crash if the car isn't driven by a human.
> 
> This _laissez-faire_ regulatory strategy was designed to entice Silicon Valley companies looking to test products outside of California, which has taken a more cautious approach to the new technology. It worked. _The Times_ reported that Ford, GM, Google, Intel, and Uber are all testing self-driving cars in Arizona. Exact figures are sparse, but there are at least hundreds of driverless vehicles in use in the state.
> 
> "What we see in today's sad news is another example of tech experimentation outpacing thoughtful regulation," Elizabeth Joh, a U.C. Davis law professor who specializes in technology and the law, told me on Monday. Questions about who should bear legal responsibility for self-driving car accidents, she said, can draw upon tort law, which wrestles with questions about liability and negligence.
> 
> In a Brookings Institution paper published in 2014, UCLA law professor John Villasenor argued that product-liability law offered the best guidance for determining legal fault with an emerging technology like self-driving cars. "Products liability has been one of the most dynamic fields of law since the middle of the 20th century," he wrote, pointing to the courts' flexibility in adapting old doctrines to new commercial goods.
> 
> These legal approaches pertain only to civil proceedings-lawsuits, in other words. What if a self-driving car commits the equivalent of vehicular manslaughter? "criminal penalties are a different story," Claire Cain Miller wrote in the _Times_ in 2014, "for the simple reason that robots cannot be charged with a crime." As Ryan Calo, a robotics law expert at the University of Washington School of Law, told her, "Criminal law is going to be looking for a guilty mind, a particular mental state-should this person have known better? If you're not driving the car, it's going to be difficult."
> 
> Though it lost ground to Arizona and other states on hardware testing, California is still breaking new ground in the legal front. In December, the state department of motor vehicles rejected a GM-backed proposal that would shift liability from the companies onto the consumer if a self-driving car's sensors weren't properly maintained. But in March, the state took a step in Arizona's direction, repealing a rule that required someone to be in the driver's seat during autonomous tests. The revision won't go into effect until April.
> 
> Villasenor urged Congress to leave this issue to the states, noting that disputes over liability for car manufacturer defects have "always been the province of state courts applying state tort remedies." But Hill legislators may have different ideas. The Republican-controlled House of Representative last September passed a billsupported by manufacturers that "would make it so that states can no longer write legislation that the auto industry considers restrictive." Instead, the law would allow federal regulators to "make the guidelines more uniform"-and, presumably, more favorable to the auto industry than in some of the most restrictive states. The Senate has yet to take up the measure.
> 
> This was not Uber's first accident involving a self-driving car in Tempe. One year ago, a woman driving a Honda CRV turned into an intersection and hit a self-driving Uber Volvo, which flipped and damaged two other cars. A Tempe police report found differing accounts of blame among drivers and participants in the crash, none of whom were seriously injured.
> 
> There are a number of arguments in favor of driverless cars. They will reduce traffic jamsand cut pollution. They're also theoretically safer compared to human drivers, who are sometimes intoxicated, distracted by their smartphone, or otherwise reckless. Some commentators opined that autonomous-vehicle research shouldn't be scaled back when tens of thousands of Americans are killed by human-operated cars each year.
> 
> View attachment 215416
> 
> Joh noted that focusing on those deaths misses the more immediate point. "This is the deployment of a new technology, with a host of foreseeable issues and questions," she explained. "The Uber incident should force states to reconsider what safeguards they should have in place beforehand."
> 
> According to the National Association of State Legislatures, 21 states have laws regulating self-driving vehicles in some way. They run the gamut from wide-open regulatory regimes like Arizona to stricter regulations like those in Nevada, which
> requires that two operators in a self-driving car during a test on public roads. The car must also be accompanied by a pilot vehicle driving directly ahead of it. While it's impossible to know if these precautions would have prevented what happened in Tempe, they could reduce the chance of similar accidents in the future.
> 
> That further regulations may be useful isn't a slight against self-driving cars as a whole. Even the most utopian tech evangelists must have known that autonomous vehicles would eventually be involved in fatal accidents. Silicon Valley and the auto industry have a responsibility to make these cars as safe as possible, but the onus is also on state legislators to build a regulatory landscape that protects everyone else.
> 
> Matt Ford is a staff writer at _The New Republic_.


Did VOLVO give Uber Authorization to tamper with Volvos Federally Approved manufactured safety systems ?

I see Absolutely No manufacturer Liability whatsoever as the Product was altered and tampered with!

It was Obviously NOT being operated in the capacity as intended by the Manufacturer !

All Warranties and Manufacturer Liabilities of Volvo are Null & Void as soon as Uber began altering the vehicle.


----------



## Uberfunitis

Wonkytonk said:


> What I expect of the autonomous vehicle is that it at the very least it attempts to avoid collisions with pedestrians it "sees" in its path.
> Which didn't happen here, which indicates to me clear negligence on the part of Uber's software team.


We will see what the law expects once all the facts come out. There is no indication one way or the other at this time that the SDC did or did not take action to avoid the person in the street outside of a designated crosswalk. They said they are still investigating.


----------



## transporter007

Wonkytonk said:


> Not with the garbage you guys are bringing to the table, hell no.
> 
> You know what might make it better? Simply acknowledge the facts on the ground.
> 
> The car "saw" the pedestrian and took no action to avoid the collision.
> 
> Because you see that's what actually happened according to the officer in that video.
> 
> Can you guys do that without blaming the victim?
> 
> See if you can do that, acknowledge the facts on the ground, over your opinions then perhaps we can have a mutually beneficial discussion on the topic, otherwise it's probably not going to happen.
> 
> What I expect of the autonomous vehicle is that it at the very least it attempts to avoid collisions with pedestrians it "sees" in its path.
> 
> Which didn't happen here, which indicates to me clear negligence on the part of Uber's software team.
> 
> Nobody is keeping you here so feel free to move on any time you like.


Spank me again, harder


----------



## Bart McCoy

transporter007 said:


> Can we wrap-up this thread
> 
> After viewing video captured by the Uber vehicle, Police Chief Moir concluded that "it's very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode (autonomous or human-driven)
> 
> *Police chief: Uber self-driving car "likely" not at fault in fatal crash*
> 
> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/0...car-likely-not-at-fault-in-fatal-crash/?amp=1


sadly, this still isn't good enough for people
they just HAVE to blame Uber
its in their blood


----------



## Bart McCoy

okay people, we got 4 topics on the same subject


----------



## Wonkytonk

Uberfunitis said:


> You are adding facts


False I'm stating the facts of the case you're attempting to interject your opinions about what a driver should be able to do given what you believe to be the available amount of time for that drive to react.

You do not know what the timeframe was so your position is complete and utter bs conjecture.

My position is that the time does not matter the car took no action to avoid the collision even thought the victim was in sight. pretty simple really. Mine is factual yours is based on conjecture.

See the difference? Of course you won't but let me assure you there clearly is.



transporter007 said:


> Spank me again, harder


It's going to be all right. You'll find your way past this temporary topic of annoyance for you. Until then have a great one.


----------



## tohunt4me

Uber DID spinoff the self driving car entity as a " seperate" business like Google did with Waymo for Liability Protection ?

Didnt they ?


----------



## Uberfunitis

Wonkytonk said:


> False I'm stating the facts of the case you're attempting to interject your opinions about what a driver should be able to do given what you believe to be the available amount of time for that drive to react.
> 
> You do not know what the timeframe was so your position is complete and utter bs conjecture.
> 
> My position is that the time does not matter the car took no action to avoid the collision even thought the victim was in sight. pretty simple really. Mine is factual yours is based on conjecture.
> 
> See the difference? Of course you won't but let me assure you there clearly is.
> 
> It's going to be all right. You'll find your way past this temporary topic of annoyance for you. Until then have a great one.


Timing does matter I know you would like to think that fairy dust can come down and stop everything. But the SDC also has an obligation not to put additional people at risk and that is exactly what would happen if it reacted too quickly.


----------



## Bart McCoy

Wonkytonk said:


> False I'm stating the facts of the case you're attempting to interject your opinions about what a driver should be able to do given what you believe to be the available amount of time for that drive to react.
> 
> You do not know what the timeframe was so your position is complete and utter bs conjecture.
> 
> My position is that the time does not matter the car took no action to avoid the collision even thought the victim was in sight. pretty simple really. Mine is factual yours is based on conjecture.
> 
> See the difference? Of course you won't but let me assure you there clearly is.
> 
> It's going to be all right. You'll find your way past this temporary topic of annoyance for you. Until then have a great one.


once again you added facts
I'm still waiting for you to post your documentation that proves uber's truck saw the pedestrian and the data that shows the truck did nothing to avoid the crash
I'm still waiting
either produce it or please stop saying you not adding facts


----------



## uberdriverfornow

transporter007 said:


> Can we wrap-up this thread
> 
> After viewing video captured by the Uber vehicle, Police Chief Moir concluded that "it's very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode (autonomous or human-driven)
> 
> *Police chief: Uber self-driving car "likely" not at fault in fatal crash*
> 
> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/0...car-likely-not-at-fault-in-fatal-crash/?amp=1


lol sounds like Uber got to the chief

if the officer said the driver made no attempt to avoid the collision and now the chief says the driver isnt at fault then this is good news for future murderers driving on the road

this says you can mow down everyone on the road in Arizona that is not in a crosswalk lol


----------



## MHR

Bart McCoy said:


> okay people, we got 4 topics on the same subject


Yeah but mine has an article attached to it by people whom write much better than I do.

A bit more philosophical than the standard ''Should Dara be tried for murder?"


----------



## transporter007

uberdriverfornow said:


> lol sounds like Uber got to the chief
> 
> if the officer said the driver made no attempt to avoid the collision and now the chief says the driver isnt at fault then this is good news for future murderers driving on the road
> 
> this says you can mow down everyone on the road in Arizona that is not in a crosswalk lol


_"this says you can mow down everyone on the road in Arizona that is not in a crosswalk lol": _ IF U ARE VALUED @ $60Bl , The family of deceased will be millionaires and life will go on.

*Will there be No future fatalities involving SDC? Only if airplanes stop falling from the sky or trains stop derailing or ships stop colliding*​
*USS Fitzgerald collision deaths ruled negligent homicide by Japanese coast guard*
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...ide-charges-in-uss-fitzgerald-collision-case/


----------



## Uberfunitis

uberdriverfornow said:


> lol sounds like Uber got to the chief
> 
> if the officer said the driver made no attempt to avoid the collision and now the chief says the driver isnt at fault then this is good news for future murderers driving on the road
> 
> this says you can mow down everyone on the road in Arizona that is not in a crosswalk lol


I will wait to see the video to see the timing of it all before I pass judgement not that my judgement is all that important. It does sound like this should reinforce the notion that you should cross the road at designated crosswalks.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Wonkytonk said:


> Not with the garbage you guys are bringing to the table, hell no.
> 
> You know what might make it better? Simply acknowledge the facts on the ground.
> 
> The car "saw" the pedestrian and took no action to avoid the collision.
> 
> Because you see that's what actually happened according to the officer in that video.
> 
> Can you guys do that without blaming the victim?
> 
> See if you can do that, acknowledge the facts on the ground, over your opinions then perhaps we can have a mutually beneficial discussion on the topic, otherwise it's probably not going to happen.
> 
> What I expect of the autonomous vehicle is that it at the very least it attempts to avoid collisions with pedestrians it "sees" in its path.
> 
> Which didn't happen here, which indicates to me clear negligence on the part of Uber's software team.
> 
> Nobody is keeping you here so feel free to move on any time you like.


i'm actually on the side of "you can't mow down pedestrians just because theyre walking in the middle of the street" but it appears you're missing a great thread here


----------



## Wonkytonk

Uberfunitis said:


> Timing does matter ...


Sure, ok, I'll bite tell me what the exact time was.

Can you do that from the facts revealed so far?

I'll answer that for you, no, no you can't. So stop talking about time as though you have the relevant time data and can make a substantive judgement based on that actual time to determine whether or not the vehicle, or an actual driver could have reacted in time to avoid the collision.

Now on the flip side we do know the car apparently took no action to avoid the collision.

See the difference we do know what the car didn't do, you do not know the time involved.

Therefore your opinions based on not knowing what the timing involved is are pure speculative bs. Great, glad you have an opinion, but don't expect anyone to actually credit it with any factual merit.



Bart McCoy said:


> once again you added facts
> I'm still waiting for you to post your documentation that proves uber's truck saw the pedestrian and the data that shows the truck did nothing to avoid the crash
> I'm still waiting
> either produce it or please stop saying you not adding facts


Watch the video. The officer was clear the vehicle "saw" the pedestrian approaching and no evidence showed that the vehicle attempted to slow down to avoid the collision, and since the vehicle hit the victim we know that it did not veer away to avoid that collision.

I'm adding no facts. I'm stating the facts so far on the ground.


----------



## dirtylee

Ex Felons need jobs too. 

Some crimes are un forgive able but barring a felon from ever getting a job again is flat out stupid. It's a huge reason why prison is a revolving door.


----------



## Uberfunitis

Wonkytonk said:


> Sure, ok, I'll bite tell me what the exact time was.
> 
> Can you do that from the facts revealed so far?
> 
> I'll answer that for you, no, no you can't. So stop talking about time as though you have the relevant time data and can make a substantive judgement based on that actual time to determine whether or not the vehicle, or an actual driver could have reacted in time to avoid the collision.
> 
> Now on the flip side we do know the car apparently took no action to avoid the collision.
> 
> See the difference we do know what the car didn't do, you do not know the time involved.
> 
> Therefore your opinions based on not knowing what the timing involved is are pure speculative bs. Great, glad you have an opinion, but don't expect anyone to actually credit it with any factual merit.


The police chief who has seen the video seems to think that timing was important and that there was not enough time to avoid the impact. Who knows he has seen the video not I at this point and not you either at this point. I will have to go with his opinion on that one as a fact on the ground. Or are you going to deny that fact because it does not fit with the story you wish to tell?


----------



## Wonkytonk

Uberfunitis said:


> The police chief who has seen the video seems to think that timing was important and that there was not enough time to avoid the impact.


Do you have the time or not?

No. No you do not. So stop speculating with facts not currently in your possession please.

Let's concentrate on what we do know and what the officer stated. 
1. He called the victim a victim.
2. He stated the video shows the woman approaching the vehicle
3. He stated that there was no indication that the vehicle attempted to brake.

And since we know the vehicle struck the victim we can assume that the vehicle didn't attempt to veer away from the victim given it didn't attempt to brake to avoid the collision either.


----------



## LA_Native

Uberfunitis said:


> You are adding facts not stated by the authorities,


 That's only because it supports his narrative.


----------



## Uberfunitis

Wonkytonk said:


> Do you have the time or not?
> 
> No. No you do not. So stop speculating with facts not currently in your possession please.
> 
> Let's concentrate on what we do know and what the officer stated.
> 1. He called the victim a victim.
> 2. He stated the video shows the woman approaching the vehicle
> 3. He stated that there was no indication that the vehicle attempted to brake.
> 
> And since we know the vehicle struck the victim we can assume that the vehicle didn't attempt to veer away from the victim given it didn't attempt to brake to avoid the collision either.


Why do you subjectively listen to one police officer but not the police chief It seems that you have an agenda and no real concern in learning what actually happened.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

this means that all felons are automatically at fault in any accident

/sarcasm


----------



## Wonkytonk

LA_Native said:


> That's only because it supports his narrative.


Lol I include facts to support my narrative and you include speculative bs to support yours, and I'm the unreasonable one?

Just lol. I don't think you realize how funny I find the way you debate. I really don't.


----------



## JimKE

Bart McCoy said:


> LoL is this a true story? how that driver slip through the cracks?


Yes, it's apparently true, and this is how it slipped through the cracks:

_"Court records obtained by the Arizona Republic show Vasquez has a criminal record in Arizona under a *different legal name*, and was released from prison in 2005."_

The guy apparently went through a legal process to change his name some time after he was released from prison. Uber or Checkr did the background check under his current name and his prior record apparently did not pop up -- although honestly, it's hard for me to understand why. I thought Uber's background checks were pretty thorough, but apparently not. They must have based the background on name and DOB only.

This failure is going to create some drama for Uber.

As you and I both said on the other thread, his priors have nothing to do with fault in the accident.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

JimKE said:


> Yes, it's apparently true, and this is how it slipped through the cracks:
> 
> _"Court records obtained by the Arizona Republic show Vasquez has a criminal record in Arizona under a *different legal name*, and was released from prison in 2005."_
> 
> The guy apparently went through a legal process to change his name some time after he was released from prison. Uber or Checkr did the background check under his current name and his prior record apparently did not pop up -- although honestly, it's hard for me to understand why. I thought Uber's background checks were pretty thorough, but apparently not. They must have based the background on name and DOB only.
> 
> This failure is going to create some drama for Uber.
> 
> As you and I both said on the other thread, his priors have nothing to do with fault in the accident.


its the fact that this type of delving into his life so shortly after this accident is making it appear people are linking the two

i thank you for making it clear you are not


----------



## LA_Native

Wonkytonk said:


> Lol I include facts to support my narrative and you include speculative bs to support yours


No you don't.

My "narrative" is I'll wait for the report and the video before offering my opinion on fault and the safety/danger of autonomous cars.

I don't think you realize how ridiculous it is to liken your blather to anything remotely resembling a debate, I really don't.


----------



## JimKE

uberdriverfornow said:


> its the fact that this type of delving into his life so shortly after this accident is making it appear people are linking the two
> 
> i thank you for making it clear you are not


I don't think anyone is. It's just a problem for Uber -- has nothing to do with the responsibility for the accident.



BurgerTiime said:


> Uber's self regulating sure is great!
> It's CRAZY drivers aren't even drug tested. Parents keep putting their children in cars to school. Someone with a bad habit cannot pass a drug test yet Uber doesn't seem to care about public safety one bit. Felons, people dying, it's all a part of the bigger Silicon pipe dream.


To be fair, lots of parents put their kids in school buses. Are school bus drivers drug tested? Naw.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Uberfunitis said:


> Why do you subjectively listen to one police officer but not the police chief It seems that you have an agenda and no real concern in learning what actually happened.


i would love to hear you explain away the fact that the officer and police chief are having opposing opinions

the officer didn't rule out charges while the chief now appears to already come to the conclusion that uber is not at fault


----------



## uberdriverfornow

JimKE said:


> I don't think anyone is. It's just a problem for Uber -- has nothing to do with the responsibility for the accident.
> 
> To be fair, lots of parents put their kids in school buses. Are school bus drivers drug tested? Naw.


you don't think school bus drivers are drug tested ?

https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1994/02/23/22bus.h13.html

and even if not randomly tested you can be sure after an accident they are


----------



## LA_Native

They are no opposing opinions between the officers.


----------



## Uberfunitis

uberdriverfornow said:


> i would love to hear you explain away the fact that the officer and police chief are having opposing opinions
> 
> the officer didn't rule out charges while the chief now appears to already come to the conclusion that uber is not at fault


More time and further review of the evidence? I am sure that with time we will know even more and can say exactly what happened one way or the other. This is not like a normal crash there is a ton of data there should be no question as to what happened when it is all said and done.


----------



## LA_Native

In this instance, opposing opinions would be one cop thinks it's the "victim's" fault while the other cop thinks it's the fault of the autonomous car. That's not the case; ergo, there's no opposing opinions.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

again, the opposing opinions is that the officer didn't rule out charges while the chief already is


----------



## tohunt4me

Bart McCoy said:


> Well there you have it.
> 
> But just look at it on face value: pedestrian crossed outside of a cross walk. Legally he has to yield to cars in the road.
> Of course it looks bad for Ubers computer driven cars, but I'm talking the legal situation here, not technology


Ok to " Kill for coloring outside the Lines"

How far away was she from Marked crosswalk ?

As she was walking bicycle across adherent to coverage by rules regarding Pedestrian Right of Way per Arizona state Law.

It appears from the photograph that bicycle was on sidewalk . . .
She nearly Made it . . . if only Robo Car had exercised caution by slowing perhaps ?

Even Deviating across " line" demarking lane if unoccupied may have allowed " safety clearance".
Human drivers would do this.
Robo Cars follow lines.


----------



## LA_Native

Again, there are no opposing opinions between the officers.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

geesh, just release the fricken video already, quit being a PR director for Uber


----------



## tohunt4me

Remember when Google Car hit a bus ?
IT WAS IN THE WRONG.
under similar lane demarcation issues.

There seems to be a repetetive flaw exposed here.

How do you teach A.I. when to " COLOR OUTSIDE THE LINES"?

This case
Will boil down to
" Reasonable Expectations"

If woman was walking bicycle across Near cross walk.

Were there crosswalk warning signs besides walking lane lines ?

Should she have " Reasonably Expected" safe crossing even if not absolutely centered between crosswalk lines ?

The struck bicycle is firmly on sidewalk in pictures.

NOT in center of road.

Yet from Offical releases
The Uber car NEVER SLOWED !

As evidenced by photos.
Damage is to right extreme fender of car.
Bicycle is on sidewalk
Solid white line exists between vehicle lane and sidewalk.

Had the vehicle slowed
Or deviated to left of its lane
Woman may be alive and unharmed today.

An attentive human driver would have avoided this.


----------



## Uberdaddyo

Wow my first featured thread. I am honored. Thanks a lot for all your contributions!


----------



## JimKE

uberdriverfornow said:


> and even if not randomly tested you can be sure after an accident they are


And so were the Uber driver and the deceased. Those tests will take several weeks.



uberdriverfornow said:


> https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1994/02/23/22bus.h13.html


That article is *14 years old*. Is it still accurate?

I'm asking -- I don't know.


----------



## LA_Native

"I suspect preliminarily it appears that the Uber would _likely _not be at fault in this accident," [Chief] Moir told the _Chronicle. _

Pro tip: look up the word "likely."

Some people here could learn a thing or two from the Chief. For instance *do not *make definitive statements nor come to conclusions _before_ the investigation is concluded.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/20/17142672/uber-deadly-self-driving-car-crash-fault-police


----------



## Wonkytonk

Uberfunitis said:


> My "narrative" is I'll wait for the report and the video before offering my opinion on fault


And that's different from me how?

I'm basing my opinions based on the facts currently on the ground, and I've said that's subject to change based on the altering facts on numerous occasions in my posts.

I'm curious how you've managed to miss me saying that as numerous times as I've said that.

Again glad you agree that the officer stated that the autonomous car didn't brake, and that it did in fact "see" the victim approaching because, you, know, that's what one of them said.



LA_Native said:


> For instance *do not *make definitive statements nor come to conclusions _before_ the investigation is concluded.


Yes. Totally agree. For example conjecturing about reaction time available for the autonomous vehicle without any reaction times being made available, I mean how dumb is that.


----------



## LA_Native

Wonkytonk said:


> Yes. Totally agree.


About time.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

JimKE said:


> And so were the Uber driver and the deceased. Those tests will take several weeks.
> 
> That article is *14 years old*. Is it still accurate?
> 
> I'm asking -- I don't know.


I don't really think the concept of drug testing for bus drivers would go backwards. I've heard it being talked about before where bus drivers are subjected to drug tests. This is how I immediately knew.


----------



## LA_Native

Just like you, I have no idea what you're trying to say.


----------



## Wonkytonk

Try paying attention then. It's not rocket science bro.



LA_Native said:


> About time.


"Yes. Totally agree. For example conjecturing about reaction time available for the autonomous vehicle without any reaction times being made available, I mean how dumb is that."

That was what I stated, are you agreeing with that as an "About time"? Because I mean it would be for you, but I'm thinking you probably don't agree with that even though it's common sense.


----------



## LA_Native

Wonkytonk said:


> That was what I stated, are you agreeing with that as an "About time"? Because I mean it would be for you, but I'm thinking you probably don't agree with that even though it's common sense.


 I think I understand what you're trying to do. And if you think I've offered an opinion as to the reaction time of SDC in question, _please_ quote me doing so, so that I can correct you, yet again.


----------



## Wonkytonk

Nah but I am tending to lump the pro autonomous crowd into the same group. What you're suggesting I'm purporting to you is the purview of another poster who keeps doing exactly that. That wasn't directed at you.


----------



## LA_Native

Anyone offering an opinion as to fault in this case is clearly talking out of his/her...


----------



## Wonkytonk

LA_Native said:


> Anyone offering an opinion as to fault in this case is clearly talking out of his/her...


Yeah sure if they're ignoring the facts on the ground and maybe insisting stupid stuff like "time" to react when they know absolutely nothing about that, totally dumb that.

On the other hand if they're suggesting that because the car doesn't seem to have either veered away from the victim, or braked to prevent the collision, or at least mitigate it, then, yeah, that's just factual, facts on the ground currently.

And as always as the facts change the opinions are subject to change. But right now it's not looking terribly good for Uber autonomous car software programmers.


----------



## LA_Native

Wonkytonk said:


> Yeah sure if they're ignoring the facts on the ground and maybe insisting stupid stuff like "time" to react when they know absolutely nothing about that, totally dumb that.
> 
> On the other hand if they're suggesting that because the car doesn't seem to have either veered away from the victim, or braked to prevent the collision, or at least mitigate it, then, yeah, that's just factual, facts on the ground currently.
> 
> And as always as the facts change the opinions are subject to change. But right now it's not looking terribly good for Uber autonomous car software programmers.


What exactly are the "facts on the ground" and what is the source for these facts?


----------



## Wonkytonk

LA_Native said:


> What exactly are the "facts on the ground" and what is the source for these facts?


 I've already gone there. Review my 1. 2. 3. post if you're really interested.


----------



## LA_Native

Wonkytonk said:


> I've already gone there. Review my 1. 2. 3. post if you're really interested.


Yeah, thought so. You're pretty much doing what you just claimed others are doing. I suggest you figure out that what "seems" means. A car _seemingly _not braking isn't the same as a car not braking. It may turn out to be the case, but you, like all of us, aren't privy to any such facts, yet.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

LA_Native said:


> Yeah, thought so. You're pretty much doing what you just claimed others are doing. I suggest you figure out that what "seems" means. A car _seemingly _not braking isn't the same as a car not braking. It may turn out to be the case, but you, like all of us, aren't privy to any such facts, yet.


Not at all. You keep twisting and misquoting everyone. Looks like I'm going to have to hit the ignore button.


----------



## LA_Native

uberdriverfornow said:


> Looks like I'm going to have to hit the ignore button.


Oh. :,(


----------



## Wonkytonk

LA_Native said:


> Yeah, thought so.


Sure, sure.

Why don't you quote that post and, I don't know, refute what's in that one.

Seems like that's totally doable right? Right?



uberdriverfornow said:


> Looks like I'm going to have to hit the ignore button.


Oh Good God NOOOOO! Whatever will I do?! If you hit the ignore button?

Lol Seriously that's like the most funny threat ever.



LA_Native said:


> Yeah, thought so.


Shhh quiet time. Look up that 1.2.3. post and reply to that.


----------



## LA_Native

Wonkytonk said:


> Why don't you quote that post and, I don't know, refute what's in that one.


This:


Wonkytonk said:


> On the other hand if they're suggesting that because the car doesn't *seem *to have either veered away from the victim, or braked to prevent the collision, or at least mitigate it, then, yeah, that's just factual, facts on the ground currently.


If your're not insinuating that that is a "fact on the ground," then supply you supply them as well as your source.

The only facts in regard to this of which I'm aware, is a j-walking ped was struck and killed by a SDC. You have insinuated that you have knowledge more facts that those I listed, but curiously, you seem afraid to list them and their supposed sources.


----------



## Wonkytonk

What amazes me about this board is the number of uber supporters constantly shilling for uber. I mean really.


----------



## LA_Native

Wonkytonk said:


> Oh Good God NOOOOO! Whatever will I do?! If you hit the ignore button?
> 
> Lol Seriously that's like the most funny threat ever.


Well, one of the funniest, but it was directed at yours truly. Settle down, Beavis.


----------



## Wonkytonk

LA_Native said:


> .


You don't get to choose our facts. They are what they are.

In this case.

The car "saw" the victim pedestrian
The car did not slow down after "seeing" the victim pedestrian
The car as yet has not been shown to have veered away from the victim pedestrian.

Pretty simple really.



LA_Native said:


> Well, one of the funniest, but it was directed at yours truly. Settle down, Beavis.


Oh clever, not really, and while not funny, at least you informed me of your age. Totally helps me know what I'm dealing with. And I mean a Beavis joke. Lol. That's totally bottom stroking for sure. lol.



LA_Native said:


> Well, one of the funniest, but it was directed at yours truly. Settle down, Beavis.


Beavis. Lol. I'm pretty much done here. Bye BH. Lol.


----------



## LA_Native

Wonkytonk said:


> You don't get to choose our facts. They are what they are.
> 
> In this case.
> 
> The car "saw" the victim pedestrian
> The car did not slow down after "seeing" the victim pedestrian
> The car as yet has not been shown to have veered away from the victim pedestrian.
> 
> Pretty simple really.


As suspected, your "facts on the ground" are the officer's opinions. His opinions may be factual, but you nor he has anyway of _currently _knowing that.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Wonkytonk said:


> Sure, sure.
> 
> Why don't you quote that post and, I don't know, refute what's in that one.
> 
> Seems like that's totally doable right? Right?
> 
> Oh Good God NOOOOO! Whatever will I do?! If you hit the ignore button?
> 
> Lol Seriously that's like the most funny threat ever.
> 
> Shhh quiet time. Look up that 1.2.3. post and reply to that.


What makes you keep thinking I'm talking to you ?


----------



## LA_Native

uberdriverfornow said:


> What makes you keep thinking I'm talking to you ?


Because he enjoys being wrong?


----------



## Wonkytonk

LA_Native said:


> A car _seemingly _not braking isn't the same as a car not braking.


Sure, and a car not braking as seen on a video from that car not braking is very probably a car not actually braking, or veering away from a collision with a pedestrian, as stated by that officer, but you know your mileage may vary.



uberdriverfornow said:


> What makes you keep thinking I'm talking to you ?


Maybe your reply to me. I don't know, lol. Seriously this is so stupid.


----------



## LA_Native

Wonkytonk said:


> Sure, and a car not braking as seen on a video from that car not braking is very probably a car not actually not braking, or veering away from a collision with a pedestrian, as stated by that officer, but you know your mileage may vary.


Did the officer say the car didn't brake? C'mon, be honest, for once.


----------



## Wonkytonk

LA_Native said:


> Did the officer say the car didn't brake? C'mon, be honest, for once.


Read the topic and you'll know. It's obvious you don't currently know but you're insisting on injecting your opinion anyway without that knowledge.


----------



## LA_Native

Wonkytonk said:


> Read the topic and you'll know. It's obvious you don't currently know but you're insisting on injecting your opinion anyway without that knowledge.


That's you. _You_ listed something as a "fact on the ground" that no one but you has said is a fact.



Wonkytonk said:


> It's obvious you don't currently know but you're insisting on injecting your opinion anyway without that knowledge.


Why don't you quote where I've injected my opinion as to fault? But you won't, because I haven't. Just more of your hysterical untruths.


----------



## Wonkytonk

LA_Native said:


> That's you. _You_ listed something as a "fact on the ground" that no one but you has said is a fact.


Except the relevant officer who conveyed the information, but, you know, read the topic and discover the facts, or continue to conjecture your bs. Your choice. But don't pretend you're not choosing to convey bs.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

uberdriverfornow said:


> What makes you keep thinking I'm talking to you ?


I hadn't even quoted you. Pay attention to who's quoting you and who's not.


----------



## LA_Native

Wonkytonk said:


> Except the relevant officer who conveyed the information, but, you know, read the topic and discover the facts, or continue to conjecture your bs. Your choice. But don't pretend you're not choosing to convey bs.


Still not quote of me "injecting my opinion" about fault, eh? No surprise; you just make s't up and hope not to get called on it.


----------



## Wonkytonk

LA_Native said:


> Why don't you quote where I've injected my opinion as to fault?


Instead since you're insisting I've done that why don't you quote where I've actually done that.



LA_Native said:


> Still not quote of me "injecting my opinion" about fault, eh? No surprise; you just make s't up and hope not to get called on it.


Still not a quote of me stating anything about you and fault.


----------



## LA_Native

Wonkytonk said:


> Still not a quote of me stating anything about you and fault.





Wonkytonk said:


> It's obvious you don't currently know but you're insisting on injecting your opinion anyway without that knowledge.


Why don't you quote the supposed opinion you said I'm injecting. But you won't; you'll just deflect, because you cant admit you just make sht up to fit whatever nonsensical narrative pops into your dishonest mind.


----------



## ntcindetroit

KenLV said:


> I believe the officer misspoke (he made several mistakes that he corrected, just missed this one). All other reports say the pedestrian was crossing EAST to WEST.


Another video depicting the bike and its owner walking across the Mill Ave. from West to East. There got plenty of time to walk a bike across the Mill Ave. before getting hit by the Uber's Xc90.


----------



## RideShareJUNKIE

Working4peanuts said:


> Hahaha. Sdc left scene of accident. Obviously it is programmed to do that or it wouldn't have done it.


The sad part is that poor machine just learned it from hours and hours of analyzing human behavior data.

How did the goon at the wheel not react? Even a crappy rideshare driver would have probably made a slight difference, at least, lol. Good time to reevaluate if your really honestly ready to launch, some person just paid with their life, dont talk to me about a lawsuit and dollar amount, its too soon.

Sucks we cant prevent but can react at best. If you rush things you lose detail, no way around that. Some things just take time to process. Thats just the human way or has been.

By no means am i trying to hint at a "I told you so" message or attitude. As much of a jerk i may be, i still have some heart. Should not have happened, but yes inevitable. No one deserves to get hurt/suffer/die!


----------



## iheartuber

Wonkytonk said:


> What amazes me about this board is the number of uber supporters constantly shilling for uber. I mean really.


My handle is "I heart uber" but that's not because I'm a shill. It's ironic numbnuts.



ntcindetroit said:


> Another video depicting the bike and its owner walking across the Mill Ave. from West to East. There got plenty of time to walk a bike across the Mill Ave. before getting hit by the Uber's Xc90.


Imagine if the woman saw the car, dropped her bike, jumped out of the way, but the car ran over the bike, the bike got stuck in the front end, and the SDC flipped over.

Would the sensors have been able to prevent that?


----------



## Kodyhead

The pilot was on a 6 hour break, the car wasn't


----------



## Friendly Jack

ÜberKraut said:


> _"The Uber vehicle was in autonomous mode with a human safety driver at the wheel when it struck the woman..."_


How much you wanna bet that Uber tries to blame the "human safety driver" for the accident?


----------



## transporter007

The operator of a self-driving Uber vehicle that struck and killed a pedestrian in suburban Phoenix Monday was a convicted felon who served almost four years in prison on an attempted armed robbery charge, according to court records.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/2...arizona-pedestrian-was-felon-report-says.html

https://everipedia.org/wiki/rafaela-vasquez/


----------



## SEAL Team 5

MHR said:


> *A Self-Driving Uber Killed a Woman. Whose Fault Is It?*


It's the same person's fault in which every pedestrian and cyclist who has disobeyed standard traffic laws that has been struck by a vehicle.



MHR said:


> A self-driving car operated by Uber struck and killed a woman on a street in Tempe, Arizona, on Sunday night


If the headline stated the truth then no one would give a crap.

*Woman Illegally Crossing Street Killed by Autonomous Vehicle.
*

The entire story is based on how the facts are presented.


----------



## Rakos

There's a missing story here...

Why didn't the driver see her...

And if he DID...

Why was he not able to stop the car...???

Something's rotten in Denmark...8>O

Smellin monkey business...8>)

Rakos


----------



## Asificarewhatyoudontthink

Sorry Rakos but, people do, in fact, step out into traffic from places the best drivers would even miss.

As to why he didn't see her, same reason the more advanced tech failed to see her in time to apply the brakes.

Also, this proves we aren't there yet.


----------



## unPat

Volvo's are the Safest car. If machine makes the same mistake as human why have them in the first place. When you are planning to replace humans with automated cars, there should be 0 errors.


----------



## Matthew Thomas

Sounds like the woman jaywalked in front of the vehicle. Don't get me wrong, I love shitting on screwber but I do believe that it was not their fault....this time.


----------



## Uberfunitis

Friendly Jack said:


> How much you wanna bet that Uber tries to blame the "human safety driver" for the accident?


In fairness if it is determined to be the vehicles fault than the blam should rest with the safety driver that is what he is being paid for to prevent the vehicle from doing. Things that it should not be doing. Now if he can show that the brakes don't work correctly or he the machine refused to give him control for whatever reason than yes it would be back on uber


----------



## Nonya busy

Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> http://www.wpxi.com/news/top-storie...-uber-struck-her-car-left-the-scene/711927153
> 
> Different story...
> 
> The fatal accident in Tempe WAS NOT a hit and run.
> 
> I am all for trashing uber,
> 
> But i only throw dirt on them that they deserve.


I just throw random dirt. I know they deserve it for one thing or another


----------



## transporter007

Rakos said:


> There's a missing story here...
> 
> Why didn't the driver see her...
> 
> And if he DID...
> 
> Why was he not able to stop the car...???
> 
> Something's rotten in Denmark...8>O
> 
> Smellin monkey business...8>)
> 
> Rakos
> View attachment 215600


Not "he", Driver is a Woman: Rafaela Vasquez, 4 years incarceration for attempted armed robbery. "Attempted" she's not good at it. Like the deceased, the security officer that caught Rafaela came out of her peripheral vision


----------



## I_Like_Spam

transporter007 said:


> Not "he", Driver is a Woman: Rafaela Vasquez, 4 years incarceration for attempted armed robbery


After people get released from the penitentiary, they often get legitimate employment. I don't think this is that shocking at all. No bank would hire someone like Vasquez, probably couldn't get a job in a pharmacy either, this kind of service job seems ideal. Uber does have homing devices, it isn't like it would be too easy to steal a self-driver.


----------



## transporter007

I_Like_Spam said:


> After people get released from the penitentiary, they often get legitimate employment. I don't think this is that shocking at all. No bank would hire someone like Vasquez, probably couldn't get a job in a pharmacy either, this kind of service job seems ideal. Uber does have homing devices, it isn't like it would be too easy to steal a self-driver.


"Homie" or "Homing" devices ?


----------



## tohunt4me

Rakos said:


> There's a missing story here...
> 
> Why didn't the driver see her...
> 
> And if he DID...
> 
> Why was he not able to stop the car...???
> 
> Something's rotten in Denmark...8>O
> 
> Smellin monkey business...8>)
> 
> Rakos
> View attachment 215600


SHE.
WHY DIDNT SHE SEE HER.
THE ARMED ROBBERY FELON IS A FEMALE.
THE UBER DRIVER IS A SHE.


----------



## Iann

What does being a ex con have anything to do with her death? 
She did the time for her crime. Just because the driver has a record does not automatically make them a murderer.


----------



## #professoruber

If you want the answer about not seeing the pedestrian. Go work a bar area where drunktards are present and report back how many times you slam on your brakes or see idiots crossing the street whenever and wherever they choose. I have almost hit a few and yelled at plenty during my Uber career.

The convicted felon issue is a moot point. Uber only checks back 7 years. And a convicted felon that spent time in prison would be well suited in a driver-less car. They spent time in prison watching there arse (figuratively and literally). Any successful prisoner adapts to their surroundings and is aware of what is going on at all times.


----------



## Rakos

Guilt by association...8>O

It does seem a bit ironic...

Poor girl will prolly...

Have to deal with this...

For the rest of her life...

And she thought it was a cushy job...8>O

Rakos


----------



## JimKE

The driver's prior criminal history is irrelevant to the traffic homicide investigation, and none of us here have enough information about that to make any sensible judgements.

But it is *not* irrelevant for Uber -- because it makes their vaunted background check system look like they really screwed up. Unless, of course, Uber knew she did hard time for armed robbery (the 3rd most serious crime, after murder and rape), but decided to hire her anyway.

Just when United Airlines was about to snatch Uber's _Ugly Media Magnet_ crown away, this had to happen...


----------



## Bart McCoy

LA_Native said:


> Did the officer say the car didn't brake? C'mon, be honest, for once.


You won't when with that guy, he's on a mission and will only roll with his narrative



Wonkytonk said:


> Read the topic and you'll know. It's obvious you don't currently know but you're insisting on injecting your opinion anyway without that knowledge.


still adding your own facts into your narrative, not cool



uberdriverfornow said:


> I hadn't even quoted you. Pay attention to who's quoting you and who's not.


Gonna say pay attention, but you don't notice that you're replying to a quote from yourself??



Uberfunitis said:


> In fairness if it is determined to be the vehicles fault than the blam should rest with the safety driver that is what he is being paid for to prevent the vehicle from doing. Things that it should not be doing. Now if he can show that the brakes don't work correctly or he the machine refused to give him control for whatever reason than yes it would be back on uber


The thing is though, if Uber blames the driver, then what's the point of having driverless cars???????????????????? There's no one to blame then. The whole point is to not have humans take control and avoid accidents.The computer is supposed to do it all


----------



## JimKE

ntcindetroit said:


> Another video depicting the bike and its owner walking across the Mill Ave. from West to East. There got plenty of time to walk a bike across the Mill Ave. before getting hit by the Uber's Xc90.


*Nobody here has any idea what happened...including me. * That said, *if* the info in this video is correct, it paints a more difficult problem for Uber.

The animation depicts FIVE lanes northbound where the woman was struck -- two left turn lanes and three straight lanes. The Uber vehicle is depicted as being in the middle straight ahead lane, so the FOURTH lane from the direction the woman was supposedly coming. If those things are accurate, the pedestrian would have to have _completely crossed three lanes_ (on foot) and _almost_ made it past the fourth lane when she was struck.

Of course, we also have to keep in mind that this is an animation -- NOT actual video of the scene. The live video also shows a similar lane configuration, but we don't know the breathless reporter is actually standing in the right spot.

If the investigation actually reveals the woman was moving East to West (right to left), then the idea that she darted into the Uber with no time for response makes more sense. But if she crossed three lanes and almost all of the fourth lane before being struck, that's a whole different story.

Also, the Uber vehicle was speeding. I know, I know, nobody but the most chicken- officer would write a ticket for 38 mph in a 35 mph zone. But it's still speeding under the law. Are the Uber SDC's _programmed_ to speed?


----------



## Bart McCoy

JimKE said:


> But if she crossed three lanes and almost all of the fourth lane before being struck, that's a whole different story.
> 
> Also, the Uber vehicle was speeding. I know, I know, nobody but the most chicken- officer would write a ticket for 38 mph in a 35 mph zone. But it's still speeding under the law. Are the Uber SDC's _programmed_ to speed?


What would the whole different story be? Fact still remains pedestrian illegally crossed. Fact still remain Uber had the right of way. Why is Uber at fault for somebody jumping into the middle of the street made for cars? Help me to understand that.

I thought they said it was going 40mph, never thought the speed limit would be less than that. And if it went to court, I don't think Uber would lose because it was going 3miles over the limit. The fact is pedestrian should never have been in the road.

People say not to victim shame. Okay. So I can just walk out in the middle of the street in front of any car, get hit, get hurt or killed, and then blame the innocent driver because they couldn't respond in a split second? Help me to understand that as well


----------



## iheartuber

Bart McCoy said:


> What would the whole different story be? Fact still remains pedestrian illegally crossed. Fact still remain Uber had the right of way. Why is Uber at fault for somebody jumping into the middle of the street made for cars? Help me to understand that.
> 
> I thought they said it was going 40mph, never thought the speed limit would be less than that. And if it went to court, I don't think Uber would lose because it was going 3miles over the limit. The fact is pedestrian should never have been in the road.
> 
> People say not to victim shame. Okay. So I can just walk out in the middle of the street in front of any car, get hit, get hurt or killed, and then blame the innocent driver because they couldn't respond in a split second? Help me to understand that as well


It's not about the technicality of the law.

It's about the fact that a human have done whatever was necessary NOT to hit the pedestrian.

Example: sometimes I'm in a situation where I'm driving through a green light and some other driver runs a red light. I see he's about to hit me. Technically, according to the law, I'm supposed to continue driving at the speed limit because I have the right of way. If he hits me, I am not at fault. But who wants an accident? So if it's possible, I will speed up or swerve or slam on the brakes- whatever it takes to avoid the accident even if technically it would be illegal on my part.

No cop is going to write ME a ticket for speeding if I did so to avoid an accident.

THATs the real point here- these robot cars are so tied up being programmed to run according to the law they cannot do what any common sense human would do in those kind of situations which is- do whatever it takes to avoid an accident.

Then there's another problem. Let's say the police determine the robot/Uber is not at fault. And maybe according to the law they are not. Do you think that's going to matter when people decide whether or not to use the service? It doesn't matter what happens in court, what matters more is what happens in the court of public opinion.

These and many more are things a lot of us here at UP have been saying are the kinds of things that make robot cars not quite ready to become a "thing" just yet.


----------



## JimKE

Bart McCoy said:


> What would the whole different story be? Fact still remains pedestrian illegally crossed. Fact still remain Uber had the right of way. Why is Uber at fault for somebody jumping into the middle of the street made for cars? Help me to understand that.


There is no question that the Uber vehicle had the right of way. Clearly it did.

I'm talking about whether the Uber SDC could have, and should have, taken evasive action. IF reaction was possible, there should have been some reaction; if not, not. But if reaction was possible, and none happened, that's a problem for Uber.

Here's the math:

Local road traffic lanes are typically 10-12 feet wide (I don't know the actual width of the specific street in this case.).

If the pedestrian, walking her bike, was traveling East to West, *she could easily have darted 10-12 feet into the Uber vehicle too quickly for any response*. She could have done 10-12 feet in maybe one second, far too quickly for any response. But that is the opposite direction of travel from what we're being told.

If the pedestrian, walking her bike, was traveling West to East (as the police and that news report say), *she would have to cross 4 lanes* -- close to 48 feet of roadway, and pass almost completely clear of the Uber vehicle, before being struck.

40'-48' vs 10'-12' = completely different scenario. How fast can a person walk a bike 40-48 feet-- 4 seconds? 5 seconds? I don't know.


----------



## Uberfunitis

Bart McCoy said:


> The thing is though, if Uber blames the driver, then what's the point of having driverless cars???????????????????? There's no one to blame then. The whole point is to not have humans take control and avoid accidents.The computer is supposed to do it all


The point is that the tech is still in development and that is why there is still people behind the wheel. Uber can easily side step blame in this I believe being that they are paying an actual driver to be behind the wheel just in case.


----------



## LA_Native

JimKE said:


> I'm talking about whether the Uber SDC could have, and should have, taken evasive action. IF reaction was [plausible], there should have been some reaction; if not, not. But if reaction was possible, and none happened, that's a problem for Uber.


I tend to agree with this -- with the minor change to _plausible _instead of possible. We'll have to wait and see. But didn't the cop intimate that her movement into the path of the car was sudden/quick? But in any case (even if the car is completely exonerated), I think this is a profound blow for SDC tech. People are very often irrational -- as demonstrated by so many of the above posts -- and will push to enact an irrational responses to a perceived danger, whether it be real or not.


----------



## Karen Stein

So who got the ticket?


----------



## JimKE

Karen Stein said:


> So who got the ticket?


Nobody, and probably nobody will. But the investigation is weeks away from conclusion.


----------



## transporter007

When Rafaela Vasquez's blood test comes back that will narrow the possibilities.
Operator May of been DUI or on a prescription drug that warns not operate machinery while taking because of diminished capacity.

It's all speculation, however we're men & women of the world

I can tell ya this, I wouldn't want to be in Rafaela's shoes.
I'm sure Dara Khosrowshahi is having a challenging month, but his shoes are Gucci and Ferragamo, also the big issues is why he's paid $95 million annual

How is any human on earth worth $95ML annual ? With bonus he may reach $200ml.
There's something really wrong here





And Justice For All


----------



## iheartuber

LA_Native said:


> I tend to agree with this -- with the minor change to _plausible _instead of possible. We'll have to wait and see. But didn't the cop intimate that her movement into the path of the car was sudden/quick? But in any case (even if the car is completely exonerated), I think this is a profound blow for SDC tech. People are very often irrational -- as demonstrated by so many of the above posts -- and will push to enact an irrational responses to a perceived danger, whether it be real or not.


I also agree but I am inclined to think that it could be a coding challenge to teach the robot to "break the law" under "certain urgent situations"


----------



## uberdriverfornow

I can just picture Bart Mccoy driving around, looking for people to mow down in his car because they aren't walking in a crosswalk. I bet he would even mow down his own mom.


----------



## LA_Native

iheartuber said:


> I also agree but I am inclined to think that it could be a coding challenge to teach the robot to "break the law" under "certain urgent situations"


The "real" danger is human behavior. I have no doubt that accidents and car related deaths would drop significantly if only SDC transported people on the roads. But since that's not going to (better not) happen, I don't think SDC have a rightful place on the road. Maybe if the tech can be developed to act more "human like" in certain scenarios, but even then, I still doubt I'd favor SDCs sharing the road with us.


----------



## Harry B

Uberdaddyo said:


> Uber suspended all of its self-driving testing Monday after what is believed to be the first fatal pedestrian crash involving the vehicles.
> 
> The testing has been going on for months in the Phoenix area, Pittsburgh, San Francisco and Toronto as automakers and technology companies compete to be the first with the technology.
> 
> -----
> 
> I'm glad hope they lose a ton of money because of this
> 
> http://www.wpxi.com/news/top-storie...iving-vehicle-service-in-pittsburgh/718237441


I would say she walked into the cars path. without lokking


----------



## iheartuber

Harry B said:


> I would say she walked into the cars path. without lokking


sometimes as a pedestrian myself I cross the street like this and i see a car way off in the distance and i start to walk across the street anyway assuming that the car will slow down or stop to yield to me.

What the woman did not expect was that a robot was driving and does things differently than usual.


----------



## Uberdaddyo

www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-03-21/for-self-driving-cars-seeing-everything-isn-t-always-enough

Heres an interesting article on what happened not sure if this was posted or discussed but its new to me.


----------



## iheartuber

Uberdaddyo said:


> www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-03-21/for-self-driving-cars-seeing-everything-isn-t-always-enough
> 
> Heres an interesting article on what happened not sure if this was posted or discussed but its new to me.


"The real challenge is you need to distinguish the difference between people and cars and bushes and paper bags and anything else that could be out in the road environment," said Matthew Johnson-Roberson, an engineering professor at the University of Michigan who works with Ford Motor Co. on autonomous vehicle research.

Annnnnnnd this is why so many of us here at UP have said that SDCs are decades away not "weeks away"

Notice the person who said "weeks away" and also who called all UP members who disagreed with that "slow" and "crazy"... that person is suddenly no longer on UP.

Hmmmm


----------



## Uberfunitis

iheartuber said:


> sometimes as a pedestrian myself I cross the street like this and i see a car way off in the distance and i start to walk across the street anyway assuming that the car will slow down or stop to yield to me.
> 
> What the woman did not expect was that a robot was driving and does things differently than usual.


At night time you would do well not to assume such things with human drivers either as you may not be seen in the dark. The police chief seem to indicate that the incident was unavoidable.


----------



## iheartuber

Uberfunitis said:


> At night time you would do well not to assume such things with human drivers either as you may not be seen in the dark. The police chief seem to indicate that the incident was unavoidable.


If I was behind the wheel it would have been avoidable


----------



## DrivingForYou




----------



## Uberfunitis

iheartuber said:


> If I was behind the wheel it would have been avoidable


You have no idea. I am sure that is what everyone says before they get into an accident.


----------



## iheartuber

Uberfunitis said:


> You have no idea. I am sure that is what everyone says before they get into an accident.


You doubt my skills bro?


----------



## Uberfunitis

iheartuber said:


> You doubt my skills bro?


Yes, nobody is super human, there is a natural reaction time.


----------



## iheartuber

Uberfunitis said:


> Yes, nobody is super human, there is a natural reaction time.


No one is perfect - except machines

Oh, wait...


----------



## Uberfunitis

iheartuber said:


> No one is perfect - except machines
> 
> Oh, wait...


Some things are unavoidable the police chief indicated that this was one of those things. The full results are not in yet so we don't know for shure yet.


----------



## Lame Beaver

iheartuber said:


> "The real challenge is you need to distinguish the difference between people and cars and bushes and paper bags and anything else that could be out in the road environment," said Matthew Johnson-Roberson, an engineering professor at the University of Michigan who works with Ford Motor Co. on autonomous vehicle research.
> 
> Annnnnnnd this is why so many of us here at UP have said that SDCs are decades away not "weeks away"
> 
> Notice the person who said "weeks away" and also who called all UP members who disagreed with that "slow" and "crazy"... that person is suddenly no longer on UP.
> 
> Hmmmm


UP is Uber shill site. Why do you think Uber never sues them?


----------



## KenLV

Not a "fact":


iheartuber said:


> It's about the fact that a human have done whatever was necessary NOT to hit the pedestrian.


Here, let me FIFY:


iheartuber said:


> It's *my **opinion* that a human [would] have done whatever was *possible* NOT to hit the pedestrian.


And therein lies the rub. You're not only assuming it was _*possible*_ for a driver to miss the pedestrian, you're saying it would have been *likely or certain* that the driver would have avoided the accident - with little information and no video to back up either assertion and millions of traffic accidents that would indicate otherwise.


----------



## UofMDriver

Watch the video. Wait for the interior camera part. Pretty clear the Safety driver was looking down and distracted looking at something.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/21/dashcam-video-deadly-self-driving-uber-crash-released.html


----------



## LA_Native

Just saw the video, not making a final judgment, but the driver not paying attention aside, this does not bode well for SDCs/Uber, IMO.


----------



## KevinH

*Dashcam video was released Wednesday night showing the dramatic and deadly crash of a self-driving Uber SUV in Arizona - as the woman operating the vehicle had her head down.*

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/21/dashcam-video-deadly-self-driving-uber-crash-released.html


----------



## Drive777

LA_Native said:


> Just saw the video, not making a final judgment, but the driver not paying attention aside, this does not bode well for SDCs/Uber, IMO.


I agree, especially since Uber's lidar sensors should have picked up what was not visible in the darkness: a pedestrian slowly crossing the road.

She does not appear to have jumped in front of the car. There was nothing obstructing the sensors line of sight. If the cars are this bad in a simple night time scenario, how are they supposed to respond during inclement weather or multiple sudden hazards?


----------



## Uberfunitis

LA_Native said:


> Just saw the video, not making a final judgment, but the driver not paying attention aside, this does not bode well for SDCs/Uber, IMO.


She seemed to come out of nowhere to me. I certainly did not see time to slow down or avoid.


----------



## LuisEnrikee

Uberfunitis said:


> She seemed to come out of nowhere to me. I certainly did not see time to slow down or avoid.


This accident could of been avoided . Period .


----------



## Uberfunitis

LuisEnrikee said:


> This accident could of been avoided . Period .


If I was driving I am not sure that I could have avoided it.


----------



## LA_Native

Uberfunitis said:


> She seemed to come out of nowhere to me. I certainly did not see time to slow down or avoid.


Well, I'd say that's because of the limits of the camera lens and lighting.

She was walking, not running. Hardly out of nowhere.


----------



## Uberfunitis

LA_Native said:


> Well, I'd say that's because of the limits of the camera lens and lighting.
> 
> She was walking, not running. Hardly out of nowhere.


Out of nowhere from what is visible


----------



## LA_Native

Uberfunitis said:


> Out of nowhere from what is visible


what's visible via a camera lens.


----------



## Uberfunitis

LA_Native said:


> what's visible via a camera lens.


I can only comment based on the available data


----------



## LA_Native

Uberfunitis said:


> I can only comment based on the available data


If were truly the case, you wouldn't have said she seemed to come out of nowhere, as that isn't at all possible.


----------



## Uberfunitis

LA_Native said:


> If were truly the case, you wouldn't have said she seemed to come out of nowhere, as that isn't at all possible.


Actually it is. She did seem to come out of nowhere she was in the dark and than all the sudden in the light in front of the vehicle. That is from the cameras view and not the distracted drivers view.


----------



## LuisEnrikee

Poor woman did not deserve that . The sensors should have worked better . The driver should face consequences


----------



## heynow321

Lame Beaver said:


> UP is Uber shill site. Why do you think Uber never sues them?


Sue them for what exactly?


----------



## JimKE

LA_Native said:


> Well, I'd say that's because of the limits of the camera lens and lighting.
> 
> She was walking, not running. Hardly out of nowhere.


Agree 100%. Totally avoidable

*The asshole was TEXTING on his phone*, which he held in his hand. He/she was staring at the phone for the *critical 4-5 seconds immediately prior to impact*. Unbelievable.

He should be charged with the accident...AND the death.


----------



## Jo3030

Wow, couldn't detect a woman from hundreds of feet away? Wow.

Sorry. Both Uber and 'driver' are at fault here.
No excuse. Dude was probably watching a video inside the car of something


----------



## Uberfunitis

JimKE said:


> Agree 100%. Totally avoidable
> 
> *The asshole was TEXTING on his phone*, which he held in his hand. He/she was staring at the phone for the *critical 4-5 seconds immediately prior to impact*. Unbelievable.
> 
> He should be charged with the accident...AND the death.


I agree the driver was distracted Ian not sure that the results would be different had he been paying attention based on the video presented


----------



## LA_Native

Uberfunitis said:


> Actually it is. She did seem to come out of nowhere she was in the dark and than all the sudden in the light in front of the vehicle. That is from the cameras view and not the distracted drivers view.


Explain how it's possible for a person to come out of nowhere.


----------



## Uberfunitis

LA_Native said:


> Explain how it's possible for a person to come out of nowhere.


Non visible to visible


----------



## backstreets-trans

LA_Native said:


> Well, I'd say that's because of the limits of the camera lens and lighting.
> 
> She was walking, not running. Hardly out of nowhere.


This is a two lane road with her being hit in the right lane. She was slowly walking a bike across the two lanes from left to right. The video is dark but if you have your car lights on you can clearly see both lanes far ahead of you at night.

There was a concert at the venue ahead on the southwest corner of the on coming intersection. This accident was totally avoidable or at least some kind of adversion should of been performed.

Lidar is suppose to work well at night and it sure didn't recognize a woman pushing a bike across two lanes this night. Uber has again misled the public on the capabilities of it's technology.


----------



## Uberfunitis

backstreets-trans said:


> This is a two lane road with her being hit in the right lane. She was slowly walking a bike across the two lanes from left to right. The video is dark but if you have your car lights on you can clearly see both lanes far ahead of you at night.
> 
> There was a concert at the venue ahead on the southwest corner of the on coming intersection. This accident was totally avoidable or at least some kind of adversion should of been performed.
> 
> Lidar is suppose to work well at night and it sure didn't recognize a woman pushing a bike across two lanes this night. Uber has again misled the public on the capabilities of it's technology.


I can only comment on what the video actually showed though I may chang my opinion if new actual facts come in


----------



## Cossio

transporter007 said:


> Not "he", Driver is a Woman: Rafaela Vasquez, 4 years incarceration for attempted armed robbery. "Attempted" she's not good at it. Like the deceased, the security officer that caught Rafaela came out of her peripheral vision


He's a ******.

But at any rate Colorado does seem to bar felons from ride share driving.

I watched the tape:






Looks like he-she may be looking at her phone. But the exterior view is clear it would have been impossible to stop.

The pedestrian emerged from the dark like batman, was jay walking, and wore all black.


----------



## dkhoser

LA_Native said:


> Just saw the video, not making a final judgment, but the driver not paying attention aside, this does not bode well for SDCs/Uber, IMO.


Just off video a human probably couldn't of avoided that but a self driving car should of seen her 100 yards prior, telling me it can't see in the dark with no weather? She was mostly cross the street,

& That driver lmao this who trusts Uber with their life lmao hey wanna a job human beta testing self driving cars? Hop in none of the intelligent engineers or money men willing to risk it, no way this person is qualified for the task haha, EAT YOUR OWN DOGFOOD 3-5 years haha , do wonder what human beta tester gets paid though think it's $1 a mile lol revolutionary technology and Uber has human guinea pig meat bags in the drivers seat to take all the blame and risk while the algos reduce the meatbags to ones zeros and pennies

Tragic but couldn't of happened to a nicer company, the irony if the first death by self driving car being a homeless person by Uber, who burns $9000 a SECOND, 12 million dollars per day could buy a whole lotta homes instead of trying to subsidize chauffeurs for poor people

Nothing to see here they'll pay a fine that amounts to a few days or weeks burn & they'll have another meat bag replacement and fatality in another few months


----------



## ntcindetroit

JimKE said:


> Agree 100%. Totally avoidable
> 
> *The asshole was TEXTING on his phone*, which he held in his hand. He/she was staring at the phone for the *critical 4-5 seconds immediately prior to impact*. Unbelievable.
> 
> He should be charged with the accident...AND the death.


It's believable. We're not sure what the test script(s) looks like and what are objective(s) of this test run. Non-the-less, there are enough indications the incident should or could be avoidable. 1. Vehicle Speed is too fast for the situation. 2. Poor engineered product, could be a combination of poor software and hardware engineering. 3. Poor project management and leadership.


----------



## Cossio

YukonDew said:


> Hope you don't have another gig cooking for Denny's.
> 
> Well, at least Uber is consistent.
> 
> Self driving car was deactivated.... I wonder if the car will get to send in the dash cam footage to plead it's case...


They'll probably send an email "we are ending our relationship with you. Our decision is final."

After I was banned, I got an email three months later about a safety complaint.



iheartuber said:


> Yeah I'll bet the investors really want to hear that


I could be CEO with that attitude, look at how far Travis got covering up rapes.


----------



## KenLV

I wonder what the law is regarding texting and driving a SDC in Tempe. Is there an exception? I couldn't find anything specifically addressing the situation. That doesn't mean there isn't an exception of course, just that I can't find it yet.

Either way, the chick was looking down 4-6 seconds each time in the moments leading up to the accident. Not good.

Question: Was she texting (as is (reasonably) assumed by folks here) or was she monitoring stuff on the console? (IDK, I've not seen the inside of these cars and don't know if they are supposed to be looking at anything there - I doubt it, but like I said, we don't know).

As to the accident itself, it's hard to say going by the video. The pedestrian appears to be walking in a dark/shadowed area and only becomes illuminated about a second prior to being struck. Again, it's hard to say due to limits of video vs. what the human eye can see - but it looks like a hard accident to avoid - probably why it's illegal to cross the street there.

40 mph stopping distance is 85-90 feet. Add to that distance for reaction time you're looking at 170-250 feet - for a human driver.

Saying that, the LiDAR should have picked up the moving object, even in the shadows.

There's a LOT of fault to go around here, but Uber has the deep pockets (suddenly this homeless-ish woman will have family who care about her) and will be on the hook civilly/financially; but criminally? Well that will all depend on my previous questions: Was she texting and if so, is there an exception for SDC for texting and driving? If she was and there is not, then this driver is effed. And rightly so.


----------



## LA_Native

Uberfunitis said:


> Non visible to visible


So, in your mind, she was invisible and then suddenly visible. 
Yeah, Uber's sunk, if they're relying on the general public to be as daft as your post.


----------



## ntcindetroit

We kind agree with the police chief that Safety driver should not be charged if she/he performed per his/her employment contract with Uber. Instead, the vehicle development team should be held accountable for the tragic death and outcome of the slowdown of the AV technology and its adaption. After all, who put a unsafe vehicle or a safe vehicle with safety driver but unsafe Virtual brain out there to experiment with real pedestrians and bikers.


----------



## Taxi2Uber

Cossio said:


> I watched the tape:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like he-she may be looking at her phone. But the exterior view is clear it would have been impossible to stop.
> 
> The pedestrian emerged from the dark like batman, was jay walking, and wore all black.


Impossibility to stop is not clear to me. There was about 2-3 seconds at full 40 mph speed to react from the initial spotting of the pedestrian to impact. That's ample time to slow and swerve or at least slam on the brakes. The pedestrian may still have been hit, or not, and likely not killed. Also, wasn't jaywalking.
SDC sensors failed to recognize the event. "Safety driver" was acting more like a passenger, not paying attention at all.


----------



## Jo3030

I was always under the impression that it was always a high paid engineer driving these things around.


----------



## LA_Native

dkhoser said:


> Just off video a human probably couldn't of avoided that but a self driving car should of seen her 100 yards prior, telling me it can't see in the dark with no weather? She was mostly cross the street,


Not sure I'd automatically cut a person any slack. If one is, as they should, looking afar up the road they likely should, depending on lighting conditions, be able to see a person with a bike on crossing the road.

However, the ped isn't completely off the hook. Crossing a the road at night, especially that casually, is (to be very kind) not too bright


----------



## Uberfunitis

I am not ready too nor am I aware of a legal framework that holds a computer system liable for something that a human would not have been able to prevent


----------



## iheartuber

Uberfunitis said:


> Out of nowhere from what is visible


Two words: periferal vision


----------



## njn

Called it with uber releasing the video.

The texting driver/ operator will be the fallguy.


----------



## iheartuber

Uberfunitis said:


> I am not ready too nor am I aware of a legal framework that holds a computer system liable for something that a human would not have been able to prevent


But what if it is determined that it IS s situation that a human could have prevented? Many here have said exactly that. Now, it's up to the police making the investigation to determine but if a lot of drivers here have said they could have avoided this then... I dunno man

Why do you have such a stiffy for robots anyway?


----------



## Uberfunitis

iheartuber said:


> But what if it is determined that it IS s situation that a human could have prevented? Many here have said exactly that. Now, it's up to the police making the investigation to determine but if a lot of drivers here have said they could have avoided this then... I dunno man
> 
> Why do you have such a stiffy for robots anyway?


The police chief said he did not think it was avoidable but we will see if charges are brought just from the video I doubt they will be.


----------



## transporter007

dkhoser said:


> Just off video a human probably couldn't of avoided that but a self driving car should of seen her 100 yards prior, telling me it can't see in the dark with no weather? She was mostly cross the street,
> 
> & That driver lmao this who trusts Uber with their life lmao hey wanna a job human beta testing self driving cars? Hop in none of the intelligent engineers or money men willing to risk it, no way this person is qualified for the task haha, EAT YOUR OWN DOGFOOD 3-5 years haha , do wonder what human beta tester gets paid though think it's $1 a mile lol revolutionary technology and Uber has human guinea pig meat bags in the drivers seat to take all the blame and risk while the algos reduce the meatbags to ones zeros and pennies
> 
> Tragic but couldn't of happened to a nicer company, the irony if the first death by self driving car being a homeless person by Uber, who burns $9000 a SECOND, 12 million dollars per day could buy a whole lotta homes instead of trying to subsidize chauffeurs for poor people
> 
> Nothing to see here they'll pay a fine that amounts to a few days or weeks burn & they'll have another meat bag replacement and fatality in another few months


"_self driving car should of seen her 100 yards prior"_
no way, she came out of no where like a Deer


----------



## iheartuber

Uberfunitis said:


> The police chief said he did not think it was avoidable but we will see if charges are brought just from the video I doubt they will be.


A bunch of drivers saw the video and said in their professional opinion it could have been avoided, but if the police chief determines that it could not have been avoided them that's all it will take to put robot cars back in business?

Methinks it won't be that easy.



transporter007 said:


> "_self driving car should of seen her 100 yards prior"_
> no way, she came out of no where like a Deer


Bring back the Tomato handle. I like that one better


----------



## ntcindetroit

Uberfunitis said:


> The police chief said he did not think it was avoidable but we will see if charges are brought just from the video I doubt they will be.


Police chief probably signaled that (Safety) driver was set up in a speedy vehicle that is too fast for the situation. As an engineer, we'd think it's totally avoidable to program the car to slow down when it's approaching populated street corners, intersections or even a crosswalk with potentially mis-functioned signal lights.


----------



## tohunt4me

uberdriverfornow said:


> I can just picture Bart Mccoy driving around, looking for people to mow down in his car because they aren't walking in a crosswalk. I bet he would even mow down his own mom.


And Not even slow down. . .
The damage was on tbe far right fender of the volvo.
A 2 foot swerve , easily accomplished while staying inside lines of lane of travel, would have left the Dead Woman Unscratched.



iheartuber said:


> "The real challenge is you need to distinguish the difference between people and cars and bushes and paper bags and anything else that could be out in the road environment," said Matthew Johnson-Roberson, an engineering professor at the University of Michigan who works with Ford Motor Co. on autonomous vehicle research.
> 
> Annnnnnnd this is why so many of us here at UP have said that SDCs are decades away not "weeks away"
> 
> Notice the person who said "weeks away" and also who called all UP members who disagreed with that "slow" and "crazy"... that person is suddenly no longer on UP.
> 
> Hmmmm


His " PROPAGANDA" is needed in Chandler . . . . .


----------



## Taxi2Uber

The police chief was told to say it was unavoidable to cover the butts of the higher-ups of AZ that allowed testing of SDCs with little to no regulation.


----------



## tohunt4me

KenLV said:


> I wonder what the law is regarding texting and driving a SDC in Tempe. Is there an exception? I couldn't find anything specifically addressing the situation. That doesn't mean there isn't an exception of course, just that I can't find it yet.
> 
> Either way, the chick was looking down 4-6 seconds each time in the moments leading up to the accident. Not good.
> 
> Question: Was she texting (as is (reasonably) assumed by folks here) or was she monitoring stuff on the console? (IDK, I've not seen the inside of these cars and don't know if they are supposed to be looking at anything there - I doubt it, but like I said, we don't know).
> 
> As to the accident itself, it's hard to say going by the video. The pedestrian appears to be walking in a dark/shadowed area and only becomes illuminated about a second prior to being struck. Again, it's hard to say due to limits of video vs. what the human eye can see - but it looks like a hard accident to avoid - probably why it's illegal to cross the street there.
> 
> 40 mph stopping distance is 85-90 feet. Add to that distance for reaction time you're looking at 170-250 feet - for a human driver.
> 
> Saying that, the LiDAR should have picked up the moving object, even in the shadows.
> 
> There's a LOT of fault to go around here, but Uber has the deep pockets (suddenly this homeless-ish woman will have family who care about her) and will be on the hook civilly/financially; but criminally? Well that will all depend on my previous questions: Was she texting and if so, is there an exception for SDC for texting and driving? If she was and there is not, then this driver is effed. And rightly so.


Phone records will be Subpoenaed



Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> There was a safety overseer in the car.


A " Slaughter Observor".



Taxi2Uber said:


> The police chief was told to say it was unavoidable to cover the butts of the higher-ups of AZ that allowed testing of SDCs with little to no regulation.


No kidding.

Massive Lawsuits could be filed for allowing this UNPROVEN TECHNOLOGY TO FREELY ROAM THE CITYS STREETS !

Tax payers subsidising a test track !

They are 50% Liable for EVEN ALLOWING IT !

OH THE LIABILITY !

WHAT A FAILURE OF PUBLIC SAFETY 
MALFEASANCE IN OFFICE !
DERELICTION OF DUTIES !
VIOLATION OF PUBLIC TRUST !

WERE THE PEOPLE EVEN ALLOWED TO VOTE ON THIS ?

Constitutional Violations !

A CONGRESSIONAL HEARING IS NEEDED !


----------



## LA_Native

ntcindetroit said:


> As an engineer, we'd think it's totally avoidable to program the car to slow down when it's approaching populated street corners, intersections or even a crosswalk with potentially mis-functioned signal lights.


Yeah, the chief's opinion on the avoidability of the accident is as meaningful as Uberfunitis' opinion -- meaningless.


----------



## tohunt4me

LA_Native said:


> Yeah, the chief's opinion on the avoidability of the accident is as meaningful as Uberfunitis' opinion -- meaningless.


Im starting to SEE THAT !

Had never even considerered this Fact.

He has to say that to CYA.
THERE MAY STILL BE A RECALL ELECTION FOR HIS JOB.

Definantly something FOR ALL OTHER CITIES TO CONSIDER !


----------



## KenLV

Taxi2Uber said:


> The police chief was told to say it was unavoidable to cover the butts of the higher-ups of AZ that allowed testing of SDCs with little to no regulation.


LOL, source??



Taxi2Uber said:


> Impossibility to stop is not clear to me. There was about 2-3 seconds at full 40 mph speed to react from the initial spotting of the pedestrian to impact. That's ample time to slow and swerve or at least slam on the brakes. The pedestrian may still have been hit, or not, and likely not killed. Also, wasn't jaywalking.
> SDC sensors failed to recognize the event. "Safety driver" was acting more like a passenger, not paying attention at all.


More like 1-2 seconds. Not nearly "ample time to slow and swerve or at least slam on the brakes", heck, that doesn't even cover *reaction time*.

Not jaywalking? Umm...

https://uberpeople.net/threads/oper...destrian-was-felon.248494/page-8#post-3747768


----------



## iheartuber

tohunt4me said:


> And Not even slow down. . .
> The damage was on tbe far right fender of the volvo.
> A 2 foot swerve , easily accomplished while staying inside lines of lane of travel, would have left the Dead Woman Unscratched.
> 
> His " PROPAGANDA" is needed in Chandler . . . . .


The Tomato cannot handle REAL spin/propaganda


----------



## tohunt4me

iheartuber said:


> The Tomato cannot handle REAL spin/propaganda


Tomato is assigned to NATIONAL PRESS SNAKE KILLING.

" COUNTER SPIN" Robo Car Psy Ops.

The centrifuge of this story is mechanically seperating Corporate B.S. from the sorry Facts.


----------



## heynow321

Taxi2Uber said:


> The police chief was told to say it was unavoidable to cover the butts of the higher-ups of AZ that allowed testing of SDCs with little to no regulation.


It's so disgustingly transparent and obvious what is happening. You can almost see the strings being pulled by boober behind the scenes. I'm sure whatever cruiser responded to the scene first is getting chewed out for letting it get out publicly that the car was in autonomous mode.



iheartuber said:


> The Tomato cannot handle REAL spin/propaganda


Greg is trying but ****ing it up like he does most things


----------



## LA_Native

The car looks to be in the #2 lane, I would expect the car's sensors to have detected the pedestrian while she was in the #1 lane (or the road way). The visibility should have no bearing on the car's ability to detect an object crossing the road -- I don't imagine the software is dependent on light to transmit data.

It's possible the car's software "thought" she, while in the #1 lane, was another car traveling in the same direction, and proceeded accordingly. But if so, that would seem to me a critical failure. Failing to distinguish between an object in the midst of crossing a multi-lane road and traveling parallel in relation to its course is, imo, unacceptable.

Maybe a human couldn't have avoided the accident, but a car that isn't supposedly reliant on light to "see" should have.


----------



## BurgerTiime

Was the thread forced to changed the title? Wtf? Uber is far reaching!
Crash caught on camera video:
https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxn...dly-self-driving-uber-crash-released.amp.htmli

I would have been able to slam the brakes!!!!

Driver looking down before crash
https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstec...ks-down-for-seconds-before-fatal-crash/?amp=1


----------



## tohunt4me

LA_Native said:


> The car looks to be in the #2 lane, I would expect the car's sensors to have detected the pedestrian while she was in the #1 lane (or the road way). The visibility should have no bearing on the car's ability to detect an object crossing the road -- I don't imagine the software is dependent on light to transmit data.
> 
> It's possible the car's software "thought" she, while in the #1 lane, was another car traveling in the same direction, and proceeded accordingly. But if so, that would seem to me a critical failure. Failing to distinguish between an object in the midst of crossing a multi-lane road and traveling parallel in relation to its course is, imo, unacceptable.
> 
> Maybe a human couldn't have avoided the accident, but a car that isn't supposedly reliant on light to "see" should have.


The poor Deceased woman even had a METAL BICYCLE for the cars RADAR to detect !

UTTER FAIL.

Radar 4 stories up in a tugboat wheel house can DETECT that amount of metal on a small wooden boat in ZERO VISIBILITY !

I have operated vessels in these conditions.

The car FAILED !


----------



## tohunt4me

Uberfunitis said:


> I think the police chiefs openion is more important than a bunch of arm char experts who have no experience in crashes and the normal investigative outcome in his jurisdiction. I think his openion would even be considered expert openion vs a bunch of people with a vested interest in seeing the technology fail.


Police dept. Is under sworn oath to protect and serve.

The Dead Constituate was NOT protected.

Is the chiefs derrire ?

I smell Arizona govt. Liability.

Seems like an obvious " Conflict of Intetests".


----------



## iheartuber

Uberfunitis said:


> I think the police chiefs openion is more important than a bunch of arm char experts who have no experience in crashes and the normal investigative outcome in his jurisdiction. I think his openion would even be considered expert openion vs a bunch of people with a vested interest in seeing the technology fail.


Wait... are you the Tomato? LOL

we are not "arm chair experts" we have REAL WORLD driving experience.

that's nothing to sneeze at


----------



## tohunt4me

iheartuber said:


> Wait... are you the Tomato? LOL
> 
> we are not "arm chair experts" we have REAL WORLD driving experience.
> 
> that's nothing to sneeze at


Unlike the Robots.
Decades of Experience.

NO FATALITIES.


----------



## iheartuber

SCHOOL SHOOTING HAPPENS

The People Say: We need gun control laws. This cannot happen again


Gun Lovers Reply: Hold up, slow down, let’s not get too hasty.


A WOMAN IS KILLED BY A SDC

The People say: We need to regulate this industry more. We can’t have this happen again.


Robo-Car Lovers Reply: Hold up, slow down, let’s not get too hasty.


----------



## Uberfunitis

The pedestrian was crossing the street at night outside of a lawful crossing. If you put yourself unnecessarily in danger, being hurt or killed is an unfortunate consequence of those choices sometimes. From seeing the video I will be very surprised if there is any kind of conviction. I certainly don't think I would have been able to avoid the pedestrian from that video.



tohunt4me said:


> Unlike the Robots.
> Decades of Experience.
> 
> NO FATALITIES.


Decades of experience by human drivers and a history of accidents happening every day.


----------



## tohunt4me

Uberfunitis said:


> The pedestrian was crossing the street at night outside of a lawful crossing. If you put yourself unnecessarily in danger, being hurt or killed is an unfortunate consequence of those choices sometimes. From seeing the video I will be very surprised if there is any kind of conviction. I certainly don't think I would have been able to avoid the pedestrian from that video.


Law and Right arent always at the same intersection.

In my state pedestrians have right of way.

40 pound METAL bicycle.
Invisible to Lidar and Radar !

Call N.O.R.A.D. !
We need Bombers made from this stealth Bicycle !

God forbid it would have been normal pedestrian . . .
Car may have never even used its brakes or swerved . . . oh wait . . .

Cant Deny the Facts.
Car did NOTHING to evade.
Blindly struck woman without even slowing.

Just think what car would have done to a 30 pound toddler.
" not in crosswalks".
Lawfully Running humans down
Does not make it right.
Any Jury will Tell you that.


----------



## LA_Native

Uberfunitis said:


> I think his openion would even be considered expert openion vs a bunch of people with a vested interest in seeing the technology fail.


I think you misspelled "opinion" too many times for it to be considered a typo.


----------



## Transporter_011

Uber should go into law enforcement bots next. I imagine it would go something like this...


----------



## Jesusdrivesuber

Hiring felons? rofl

Ban them, ****ing ban them already.


----------



## tohunt4me

Transporter_011 said:


> Uber should go into law enforcement bots next. I imagine it would go something like this...


Google D.A.R.P.A. is a DEFENSE CONTRACTOR.


----------



## Taxi2Uber

Uberfunitis said:


> The pedestrian was crossing the street at night outside of a lawful crossing.


I guess if people say this enough, people actually start to believe it.



Uberfunitis said:


> I certainly don't think I would have been able to avoid the pedestrian from that video.


Well, I certainly think I could have avoided killing the pedestrian. So between us 2, that's a 50% chance of survival for her.
That's 50% more than a SDC, whose computer can make millions of decisions a second, one of which is to not slow down or brake.
That's 50% more than a SDC, whose sensors were unable to recognize an object approaching and entering its path.
That's 50% more than a SDC, whose "safety driver" was not paying attention and acting more a passenger.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

In a video in dark conditions of course it's going to appear that the person is impossible to see to the driver, which is clearly a ****** btw. He simply has female hair on. 

To the person driving the car, there are lights on the road, he should have been able to see the pax. He didn't just come around the corner and she didn't just jump out in front of him. It just appears that way 'cause video always has problems in dark conditions.


----------



## Jo3030

Uber failed.
"Driver" failed (which I always thought were like engineers making 100k, apparently Uber has downgraded that to a dude making $11/hr)
AZ failed. System failed.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Also, these things are supposed to be able to have some sort of radar detection system, how was it not able to see her at all ? 

These things are supposed to be perfect and this is just a small situation it should have dominated a human at, seeing someone hundreds of feet in advance with nothing in between to hide behind. 

In this case, this human shouldn't even be a factor because it's supposed to avoid someone in the road like this. You can clearly see the lady was walking slow, she didn't just bolt in front of this car.

How the police chief can say the car had no time to stop is beyond belief.


----------



## Jo3030

The Police Chief got paid off.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Jo3030 said:


> The Police Chief got paid off.


Or he's just stupid. Or he isn't accounting for the fact that just because it's dark in the video that the person was invisible to either the human or the radar.


----------



## Jo3030

With all those sensors...
Amazing.


----------



## UBERPROcolorado

Uberdaddyo said:


> Uber suspended all of its self-driving testing Monday after what is believed to be the first fatal pedestrian crash involving the vehicles.
> 
> The testing has been going on for months in the Phoenix area, Pittsburgh, San Francisco and Toronto as automakers and technology companies compete to be the first with the technology.
> 
> -----
> 
> I'm glad hope they lose a ton of money because of this
> 
> http://www.wpxi.com/news/top-storie...iving-vehicle-service-in-pittsburgh/718237441


The next disaster will be worse. HACKER'S!

There is not a data base or platform that can't be hacked. Gov't or private!

A hacker can take control of; acceleration, braking, air bags, steering, door locks....and the list goes on.

I don't think this will end well.


----------



## ntcindetroit

tohunt4me said:


> ...
> 40 pound METAL bicycle.
> Invisible to Lidar and Radar !
> 
> ... stealth Bicycle !
> 
> God forbid it would have been normal pedestrian . . .
> Car may have never even used its brakes or swerved . . . oh wait . . .
> 
> Cant Deny the Facts.
> Car did NOTHING to evade.
> Blindly struck woman without even slowing.
> 
> Just think what car would have done to a 30 pound toddler.
> " not in crosswalks".
> Lawfully Running humans down
> Does not make it right.
> Any Jury will Tell you that.


Was that a self-riding-bicycle? Revenge of the SDC ? We'd think it was failure of Uber product to recognize the live human walking across the road casually.

1. Vehicle Speed above or exceeds legal limit., 
2. Speed too fast for the situation., 
3. Fail to keep vehicle under control all the time, 
are things to be considered in enforcement area.


----------



## JimKE

Just want to clarify a couple of things because several threads have been merged here, and many missed important info:

First of all, here is a Google Earth view of the location.










Mill Avenue runs from the bottom of the picture to the top.
The Uber SDC came out of the bottom right corner of the picture, headed up in the picture.
The roadway is initially 4 lanes and then widens to FIVE lanes
Two left turn lanes
Two straight lanes
One right turn lane

The Uber SDC was in the rightmost straight lane, and did not change lanes. That is the FOURTH lane from the median on the left.
The victim was walking her bike from the median across to the sidewalk on the far right side, left to right.
The victim fully crossed both left turn lanes and the first straight lane before being struck in the FOURTH lane.
The northbound lanes of this 5 lane roadway are approximately 50-60 feet wide.
The actual point of collision would have been 12-13 feet from the edge of the sidewalk, or about 48 feet from the median.
*Also, anyone who has not yet done so should watch the video. *

There is NO traffic. There are no obstructed views.

And in the driver portion of the video, the driver was clearly looking at something on his/her phone for *the critical 5-6 seconds immediately prior to impact.*


----------



## ntcindetroit

Uberfunitis said:


> The pedestrian was crossing the street at night outside of a lawful crossing. If you put yourself unnecessarily in danger, being hurt or killed is an unfortunate consequence of those choices sometimes. From seeing the video I will be very surprised if there is any kind of conviction. I certainly don't think I would have been able to avoid the pedestrian from that video.
> 
> Decades of experience by human drivers and a history of accidents happening every day.


There is no sign that can be seen to forbid road user(s) to cross the Mill Ave. from west to east at the point of impact site. The danger is from the speeding 4 thousand pounds plus metal with electronics that is untamed by human yet. We real drivers know how to avoid the accident like this by opting out not to be Uber Safety Driver. What an irony!


----------



## uberdriverfornow

If the pedestrian was around a corner and the car didn't see her, I can see that but this is so far from that scenario it's just unbelievable that the car made no attempt to stop. Yes, the driver was looking down and didn't see the pedestrian but the car is supposed to be better than a driver in this scenario and it wasn't even close.


----------



## Uberfunitis

Add to that the pedestrian was outside the legal crossing for that road where one would and should expect such crossings and that it was night time. The video showed the pedestrian stepping out of the dark and directly and without warning directly in front of the vehicle.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Uberfunitis said:


> Add to that the pedestrian was outside the legal crossing for that road where one would and should expect such crossings and that it was night time. The video showed the pedestrian stepping out of the dark and directly and without warning directly in front of the vehicle.


The pedestrian did not step right in front of that car. Are you reading anything people are posting and did you watch the video at all ?


----------



## Uberfunitis

uberdriverfornow said:


> The pedestrian did not step right in front of that car. Are you reading anything people are posting and did you watch the video at all ?


I did watch the video and that is exactly what I observed from the point of view of the video


----------



## Cossio

Taxi2Uber said:


> Impossibility to stop is not clear to me. There was about 2-3 seconds at full 40 mph speed to react from the initial spotting of the pedestrian to impact. That's ample time to slow and swerve or at least slam on the brakes. The pedestrian may still have been hit, or not, and likely not killed. Also, wasn't jaywalking.
> SDC sensors failed to recognize the event. "Safety driver" was acting more like a passenger, not paying attention at all.


This is a quote from Reddit:

*So doing some basic math here....

White center lines = 10' each

Empty space between lines = 30'

Distance traveled in FPS "Feet Per Second" at 35 MPH = 52.5'

Road gradient roughly 0%

Reaction distance = 34'

Breaking distance at 35 MPH - 62'

Stopping distance at 35 MPH - 100'

When the pedestrians shoes first become visible in the video there is approximately 59' between the car and the pedestrian, in 1 second the car will have already covered 52.5' of that gap leaving 6.5' left to stop the car.

In order for a human driver, or the driver in this car to have avoided this collision by merely hitting the brakes and traveling in a straight line, "as is the reaction when startled by something on the road" there would have needed to be at least another 127.5' of distance between the car and the pedestrian.

For all the posts and articles that I have seen bashing the driver and Uber because this could have been avoided, it really couldn't have, the laws of physics would not have even allowed this to have been avoided in the best possible scenario.

And to touch on the subject of their being street lights there, in many scenarios those street light reflections on your windshield can actually be quite obstructing depending on the glare, anyone living in an area with many street lights can probably attest to that as well.

Lesson of the day - Don't jaywalk in the dark.*


----------



## ntcindetroit

Uberfunitis said:


> I did watch the video and that is exactly what I observed from the point of view of the video


We'd think the Uber owned alterered Xc90 was not aware of or recognizing it's about to make a historic event by not acknowledging the imminent danger of vehicle manslaughter or homicide by a 4000+ pounds weapon in a civilized neighborhood.


----------



## dkhoser

Jo3030 said:


> Uber failed.
> "Driver" failed (which I always thought were like engineers making 100k, apparently Uber has downgraded that to a dude making $11/hr)
> AZ failed. System failed.


no 100K engineer is going to eat their own dog food & risk their lives in an actual self driving car, thats for the human meat bag felon beta testers lmao steve jobs didnt let his kid use an iphone, no actual rich people are going to trust an uber branded or any self driving car, they can afford actual chauffeur & uber black

youll never see a wealthy person in one of these outside a closed course with a lloyds of londons insurance policy for 100 million just in case


----------



## ntcindetroit

Cossio said:


> This is a quote from Reddit:
> 
> *So doing some basic math here....
> 
> White center lines = 10' each
> 
> Empty space between lines = 30'
> 
> Distance traveled in FPS "Feet Per Second" at 35 MPH = 52.5'
> 
> Road gradient roughly 0%
> 
> Reaction distance = 34'
> 
> Breaking distance at 35 MPH - 62'
> 
> Stopping distance at 35 MPH - 100'
> 
> When the pedestrians shoes first become visible in the video there is approximately 59' between the car and the pedestrian, in 1 second the car will have already covered 52.5' of that gap leaving 6.5' left to stop the car.
> 
> In order for a human driver, or the driver in this car to have avoided this collision by merely hitting the brakes and traveling in a straight line, "as is the reaction when startled by something on the road" there would have needed to be at least another 127.5' of distance between the car and the pedestrian.
> 
> For all the posts and articles that I have seen bashing the driver and Uber because this could have been avoided, it really couldn't have, the laws of physics would not have even allowed this to have been avoided in the best possible scenario.
> 
> And to touch on the subject of their being street lights there, in many scenarios those street light reflections on your windshield can actually be quite obstructing depending on the glare, anyone living in an area with many street lights can probably attest to that as well.
> 
> Lesson of the day - Don't jaywalk in the dark.*


Lesson learnt - You need no Newton to know this accident is avoidable, but not to discover Uber's blind spot(s) in design/program its SDC. If the test vehicle is programmed at 80 to 90% of post speed limit when all things are clear to go and immediately slow down when any unrecognized objects or subject presented beyond of its recognition and classification or sorting capability.


----------



## JimKE

Cossio said:


> This is a quote from Reddit:
> 
> *So doing some basic math here....
> 
> White center lines = 10' each
> 
> Empty space between lines = 30'*


This makes no sense. Traffic lanes are 10-12 feet wide...NOT 30 feet wide. The lady fully crossed THREE lanes and was most of the way across the FOURTH lane when struck.
*



Distance traveled in FPS "Feet Per Second" at 35 MPH = 52.5'

Click to expand...

*MPH to FPS Calculator: https://www.google.com/search?q=mph...5.69i57j0l5.9100j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

35 MPH = 51.333 feet per second

*The Uber SDC was going 38 MPH, which = 54.733 feet per second




Road gradient roughly 0%

Reaction distance = 34'

Breaking distance at 35 MPH - 62'

Stopping distance at 35 MPH - 100'

Click to expand...

*Don't know about any road grade, but the other numbers here are approximately correct. At 38 MPH, the total stopping distance would have been about 110 feet.
*



When the pedestrians shoes first become visible in the video...

Click to expand...

And herein lies the major fallacy -- LIFE is not a video. *

An alert human driver, looking out through the windshield instead of down at their phone, would have seen the victim long before she is detectable on low-quality video. 
A correctly functioning SDC should have detected the woman as soon as she stepped off the median into the street.
The average walking speed is 4-5 feet per second. This lady was walking a bicycle, so she was probably at the low end of that range, or even slower than 4 feet per second. But for argument sake, let's use the top-end figure of 5 feet per second.

She crossed 3 FULL lanes, and made it more than halfway across the FOURTH lane before being struck. Using the faster end of walking speed, and the narrower limit of traffic lanes, she covered at least 35 feet from stepping off the median to impact. (Realistically, probably more like 50 feet).

But even using the most conservative values, she was crossing the street for *AT LEAST 7 seconds* before being struck. If we use the lower end of the walking speed scale, it was at least 9 seconds.

(*edited to add a little more basic math* -- 7 seconds x 54.733 feet per second of Uber vehicle speed = the Uber vehicle was *383 feet away when the lady entered the roadway* -- more than the length of a football field!)

There was plenty of time to avoid this crash.


----------



## Uberfunitis

ntcindetroit said:


> Where is the police chief? The Chief already express his/her own opinion that said Uber Xc90 was not aware of/recognizing it's about to make a historic event by not acknowledging the imminent danger of vehicle manslaughter or homicide by a 4000+ pounds weapon in a civilized neighborhood.


From my reading he seems to be saying that the entire event probably could not have been avoided. That is just what I have read him saying perhaps you have other interviews with him that I have not seen yet?



dkhoser said:


> no 100K engineer is going to eat their own dog food & risk their lives in an actual self driving car, thats for the human meat bag felon beta testers lmao steve jobs didnt let his kid use an iphone, no actual rich people are going to trust an uber branded or any self driving car, they can afford actual chauffeur & uber black
> 
> youll never see a wealthy person in one of these outside a closed course with a lloyds of londons insurance policy for 100 million just in case


Who are the people driving around these very expensive teslas in autonomous mode certainly not the poor.



JimKE said:


> *And herein lies the major fallacy -- LIFE is not a video. *
> 
> An alert human driver, looking out through the windshield instead of down at their phone, would have seen the victim long before she is detectable on low-quality video.


We have no idea what a human would have seen at that moment. I have not seen a recreation yet for the given situation. The video is the evidence of what was observable to the driver at this time.


----------



## ntcindetroit

JimKE said:


> Just want to clarify a couple of things because several threads have been merged here, and many missed important info:
> 
> First of all, here is a Google Earth view of the location.
> View attachment 215881
> 
> 
> 
> Mill Avenue runs from the bottom of the picture to the top.
> The Uber SDC came out of the bottom right corner of the picture, headed up in the picture.
> The roadway is initially 4 lanes and then widens to FIVE lanes
> Two left turn lanes
> Two straight lanes
> One right turn lane
> 
> The Uber SDC was in the rightmost straight lane, and did not change lanes. That is the FOURTH lane from the median on the left.
> The victim was walking her bike from the median across to the sidewalk on the far right side, left to right.
> The victim fully crossed both left turn lanes and the first straight lane before being struck in the FOURTH lane.
> The northbound lanes of this 5 lane roadway are approximately 50-60 feet wide.
> The actual point of collision would have been 12-13 feet from the edge of the sidewalk, or about 48 feet from the median.
> *Also, anyone who has not yet done so should watch the video. *
> 
> There is NO traffic. There are no obstructed views.
> 
> And in the driver portion of the video, the driver was clearly looking at something on his/her phone for *the critical 5-6 seconds immediately prior to impact.*


----------



## MHR

Uberfunitis said:


> The video is the evidence of what was observable to the driver at this time.


Which was nothing because he/she/it was not even looking at the frickin road.


----------



## Uberfunitis

MHR said:


> Which was nothing because he/she/it was not even looking at the frickin road.


That has absolutely nothing to do with if the situation was avoidable or not. The first question is could it have been avoided by a human paying attention. If that is yes, though the police seem to indicate that it was probably not avoidable. Than you really nail that safety driver who was distracted and could have prevented it. Hell I would even say nail the safety observer for being distracted even if all this could not have been avoided just as a warning to others in similar vehicles including teslas and those with adaptive cruse control etc.

I don't know why you are getting hung up over the drivers perceived sexual identity.


----------



## tohunt4me

Jo3030 said:


> With all those sensors...
> Amazing.


Imagine a pedestrian NOT demarketed by 12 square feet of METAL bicycle Frame !

Car may back up and run Them down again !



MHR said:


> Which was nothing because he/she/it was not even looking at the frickin road.


Eyes adjusting from bright cell phone to dark outside take longer time to focus.



Uberfunitis said:


> That has absolutely nothing to do with if the situation was avoidable or not. The first question is could it have been avoided by a human paying attention. If that is yes, though the police seem to indicate that it was probably not avoidable. Than you really nail that safety driver who was distracted and could have prevented it. Hell I would even say nail the safety observer for being distracted even if all this could not have been avoided just as a warning to others in similar vehicles including teslas and those with adaptive cruse control etc.
> 
> I don't know why you are getting hung up over the drivers perceived sexual identity.


Nail uber for pushing technology which CLEARLY ISNT CAPABLE.

NO MATTER WHO IT WAS STOLEN FROM !


----------



## Uberfunitis

tohunt4me said:


> Nail uber for pushing technology which CLEARLY ISNT CAPABLE.
> 
> NO MATTER WHO IT WAS STOLEN FROM !


Sure if it comes out in the wash that a human would have likely avoided this, than I fully agree that Uber should be held accountable as well. At the very least they allowed a climate where the safety observer felt it was acceptable to do other things. With all these cameras always recording the safety observer that kind of behavior should be easily caught and done away with.


----------



## tohunt4me

Only 2 feet of Volvo fender took that womans life away forever!

2 feet steering to the Left.
Brakes applied lightly 100 feet away . . .
EASILY would have given the 2 feet needed to not cause Death.

WHY CANT A ROBO CAR CALCULATE A LIFE SAVING 2 FOOT ADJUSTMENT ?


----------



## JimKE

tohunt4me said:


> Nail uber for pushing technology which CLEARLY ISNT CAPABLE.
> 
> NO MATTER WHO IT WAS STOLEN FROM !


That's gotta be disappointing, lol.

You steal someone else's technology. They sue your ass off, tie you up in court for months, cost you huge bucks in attorneys fees. You settle on their terms.

And then -- the crap you stole at such great cost DOESN'T WORK!


----------



## tohunt4me

JimKE said:


> This makes no sense. Traffic lanes are 10-12 feet wide...NOT 30 feet wide. The lady fully crossed THREE lanes and was most of the way across the FOURTH lane when struck.
> 
> MPH to FPS Calculator: https://www.google.com/search?q=mph...5.69i57j0l5.9100j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
> 
> 35 MPH = 51.333 feet per second
> 
> *The Uber SDC was going 38 MPH, which = 54.733 feet per second
> *
> Don't know about any road grade, but the other numbers here are approximately correct. At 38 MPH, the total stopping distance would have been about 110 feet.
> *
> And herein lies the major fallacy -- LIFE is not a video. *
> 
> An alert human driver, looking out through the windshield instead of down at their phone, would have seen the victim long before she is detectable on low-quality video.
> A correctly functioning SDC should have detected the woman as soon as she stepped off the median into the street.
> The average walking speed is 4-5 feet per second. This lady was walking a bicycle, so she was probably at the low end of that range, or even slower than 4 feet per second. But for argument sake, let's use the top-end figure of 5 feet per second.
> 
> She crossed 3 FULL lanes, and made it more than halfway across the FOURTH lane before being struck. Using the faster end of walking speed, and the narrower limit of traffic lanes, she covered at least 35 feet from stepping off the median to impact. (Realistically, probably more like 50 feet).
> 
> But even using the most conservative values, she was crossing the street for *AT LEAST 7 seconds* before being struck. If we use the lower end of the walking speed scale, it was at least 9 seconds.
> 
> (*edited to add a little more basic math* -- 7 seconds x 54.733 feet per second of Uber vehicle speed = the Uber vehicle was *383 feet away when the lady entered the roadway* -- more than the length of a football field!)
> 
> There was plenty of time to avoid this crash.


A correct functioning Robo Car should have mapped woman on the median.

Self learning A.I. SHOULD HAVE ANTICIPATED LATERAL MOVEMENT.



JimKE said:


> That's gotta be disappointing, lol.
> 
> You steal someone else's technology. They sue your ass off, tie you up in court for months, cost you huge bucks in attorneys fees. You settle on their terms.
> 
> And then -- the crap you stole at such great cost DOESN'T WORK!


They SHOULD HAVE INVESTED IN THEIR PROVEN TECHNOLOGY.

US

HUMAN DRIVERS.

THEY ROBBED OUR FUNDING
TO PAY FOR STOLEN GOODS
WHICH CAUSED THIS !

"WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND"

Gee . . . you think Google Booby Trapped them ?

" I'll just leave this exploding Cigar laying around here . . . if a thief lights it . . . its his own fault !"

Industrial Espionage has many faces.


----------



## Uberfunitis

tohunt4me said:


> They SHOULD HAVE INVESTED IN THEIR PROVEN TECHNOLOGY.
> 
> US
> 
> HUMAN DRIVERS.


Human drivers will eventually be something only seen in history books, or exclusive closed courses for the ultra wealthy.


----------



## tohunt4me

Uberfunitis said:


> Human drivers will eventually be something only seen in history books, or exclusive closed courses for the ultra wealthy.


Yes yes.
The Rich will download themselves for Eternity using Transhumanist Technology Google is so heavily invested in and the Poor will be wiped from the face of the earth.

Satans Glorious Transhumanist Robot Kingdom on Earth.

Go ahead Disciple . . . believe there will be no Resistance.

Much worse than Orwell had Ever imagined


----------



## tohunt4me

Uberfunitis said:


> Sure if it comes out in the wash that a human would have likely avoided this, than I fully agree that Uber should be held accountable as well. At the very least they allowed a climate where the safety observer felt it was acceptable to do other things. With all these cameras always recording the safety observer that kind of behavior should be easily caught and done away with.


Ubers " Safety Observor", was as useful as a SCHOOL GUARD WHO HIDES like in Florida !

Both textbook cases of " Dereliction of Duty".

Some people think they are paid to do nothing.

Everyone wants to have lifestyle of a D.C. Career Politician.
" Money for Nothing
Checks for Free"- Dire Straits


----------



## phillipzx3

tohunt4me said:


> Just like " ride sharing" was Promoted as " Creating Human Jobs"?


Ridesharing was created because cabs refused to pick up drunks, people with service animals, grocery runs, short trips.....you know, like TNC drivers are doing now that they've had a taste of the livery service industry. ;-)


----------



## tohunt4me

phillipzx3 said:


> Ridesharing was created because cabs refused to pick up drunks, people with service animals, grocery runs, short trips.....you know, like TNC drivers are doing now that they've had a taste of the livery service industry. ;-)


It was SOLD to area Politicians as being a " JOB CREATOR"
When Uber begged us all to turn up at Govt. Meetings wearing free t shirts.

( 4 rate cuts ago)


----------



## dkhoser

all it takes is one bird to shit on a sensor, mud splashed, paintball, egg to deem a meatbag unfit for life until they deploy the robot sensor wipers lmao all this money & whose gonna wash & maintain em everyday? doh


----------



## tohunt4me

dkhoser said:


> all it takes is one bird to shit on a sensor, mud splashed, paintball, egg to deem a meatbag unfit for life until they deploy the robot sensor wipers lmao all this money & whose gonna wash & maintain em everyday? doh


Sensors must be cleaned with a special alcohol solution that does gawd knows what to the ecosystem.


----------



## LA_Native

BurgerTiime said:


> Was the thread forced to changed the title? Wtf? Uber is far reaching!


You'd think one of the "featured" threads would be about the autonomous car killing the pedestrian...


----------



## uberdriverfornow

not only did the car miss the pedestrian but it missed the bike too


----------



## Bart McCoy

iheartuber said:


> If I was behind the wheel it would have been avoidable


No way you can know for sure. You have x-ray vision? hard to see the person/bike until car was right upon it. Monday monday morning quarterbacking I see



iheartuber said:


> You doubt my skills bro?


I sure do



LuisEnrikee said:


> You're full of shit.
> This accident could of been avoided . Period .


chill
But its on your opinion, no where near fact



LuisEnrikee said:


> Poor woman did not deserve that . The sensors should have worked better . The driver should face consequences


So if it wasn't an uber car and you couldn't blame sensors, then what? And the driver should face consequences because somebody illegally crossed the road in the middle of the night where human eyes can't see?



JimKE said:


> Agree 100%. Totally avoidable
> 
> *The asshole was TEXTING on his phone*, which he held in his hand. He/she was staring at the phone for the *critical 4-5 seconds immediately prior to impact*. Unbelievable.
> 
> He should be charged with the accident...AND the death.


its possibly avoidable, no where near totally



LA_Native said:


> Explain how it's possible for a person to come out of nowhere.


easy. its all about visibility. not sure how you expect drivers to see people not in crosswalks against nightness. Driver saw him when lights shined on pedestrian, but that of course was too late



KenLV said:


> I wonder what the law is regarding texting and driving a SDC in Tempe. Is there an exception? I couldn't find anything specifically addressing the situation. That doesn't mean there isn't an exception of course, just that I can't find it yet.
> .


It seems if you're not the driving, you can do anything you want, just like a passenger



Uberfunitis said:


> The police chief said he did not think it was avoidable but we will see if charges are brought just from the video I doubt they will be.


I doubt as well. Not enough time. People acting like the car had 5minutes to make a maneuver, when video wise it looked like 5 miliseconds



BurgerTiime said:


> I would have been able to slam the brakes!!!!


Anybody could slame the brakes, I still doubt you would have avoided hitting the illegal pedestrian



Taxi2Uber said:


> I guess if people say this enough, people actually start to believe it.
> 
> .


Whether they say it or not, its the truth. People just can't seem to accept it



Jo3030 said:


> The Police Chief got paid off.


Huh? all he did was simply not be the judge and jury of the driver until full investigation completed. Makes complete sense to me



MHR said:


> Which was nothing because he/she/it was not even looking at the frickin road.


If I buy an autonomous car, I won't be looking at the road either. If I have to watch where I'm going, its no point of me buying a driverless car


----------



## Uberfunitis

Bart McCoy said:


> If I buy a autonomous car, I won't be looking at the road either. If I have to watch were I'm going, its not point of me buying a driverless car


I agree with this however, in this case he was not some random rider in the vehicle, the driver was being paid to provide a back up human safety net in case the care did not perform as expected I would expect him to be paying attention just as if he were driving because he is expected to take over for the vehicle should the need arise.


----------



## Bart McCoy

Uberfunitis said:


> I agree with this however, in this case he was not some random rider in the vehicle, the driver was being paid to provide a back up human safety net in case the care did not perform as expected I would expect him to be paying attention just as if he were driving because he is expected to take over for the vehicle should the need arise.


Yes, he was supposed to be a backup driver, not a superhero. He can only prevent accident when given adequate amount of time. Looking at the video, in the dark, I can see how he didn't see the pedestrian until the truck lights shine on him but that was too late. I mean, we just can't ignore people crossing the road in the middle of the night not even looking for oncoming traffic that has their light on. How do you miss a truck with headlights coming at you? Fact is this whole tragedy started with the victim crossing the road illegally and negligently (not looking). Some may call it victim shaming, I simply call it the facts of what happened


----------



## Uberfunitis

Bart McCoy said:


> Yes, he was supposed to be a backup driver, not a superhero. He can only prevent accident when given adequate amount of time. Looking at the video, in the dark, I can see how he didn't see the pedestrian until the truck lights shine on him but that was too late. I mean, we just can't ignore people crossing the road in the middle of the night not even looking for oncoming traffic that has their light on. How do you miss a truck with headlights coming at you? Fact is this whole tragedy started with the victim crossing the road illegally and negligently (not looking). Some may call it victim shaming, I simply call it the facts of what happened


Yes, I would expect him to pay attention though. I am not saying he could have done anything either way but the video did make it seem like he was distracted with something else, not that I think that would have changed the outcome any.


----------



## LA_Native

Bart McCoy said:


> easy. its all about visibility. not sure how you expect drivers to see people not in crosswalks against nightness. Driver saw him when lights shined on pedestrian, but that of course was too late


Only thing is, it's not possible for anyone to come out of nowhere. I get that people, who have an agenda, purposely act daft, but reasonable people know "nowhere" aren't areas of the road where the car's lights don't illuminate. I'm am often able to see areas of the road that aren't illuminated by my car's headlights. However, I understand that people have an agenda and will act obtuse to forward that agenda, even at the cost of appearing moronic to deny the obvious.

Of course, I'd expect a driver to see areas of the road that aren't illuminated by his/her car's lights, but I never said that this [distracted] driver in this instance, whose ability to see with the naked eye depends _entirely _on lighting conditions, should have seen the ped crossing the road, but a car with LIDAR? Yeah, I'd expect it to "see" a ped crossing the street and take evasive action (even unsuccessful) in _any _lighting condition.


----------



## Bart McCoy

LA_Native said:


> Only thing is, it's not possible for anyone to come out of nowhere. I get that people, who have an agenda, purposely act daft, but reasonable people know "nowhere" aren't areas of the road where the car's lights don't illuminate. I'm am often able to see areas of the road that aren't illuminated by my car's headlights. However, I understand that people have an agenda and will act obtuse to forward that agenda, even at the cost of appearing moronic to deny the obvious.
> 
> Of course, I'd expect a driver to see areas of the road that aren't illuminated by his/her car's lights, but I never said that this [distracted] driver in this instance, whose ability to see with the naked eye depends _entirely _on lighting conditions, should have seen the ped crossing the road, but a car with LIDAR? Yeah, I'd expect it to "see" a ped crossing the street and take evasive action (even unsuccessful) in _any _lighting condition.


not sure if you wrote that right, you expect drivers to see areas of the road that aren't illuminated? oh really

but see, to make you're point, you're discrediting the other's guy point when he said "come out of no whwere". That's playing semantics really. We all know humans don't poof magically come out of thin air, smh. Either you knew what the guy meant or you really thought a magician created a guy and a bike in 1 second before the car got there.

so again, we are obviously talking about visibility. Its night. Most normal folks don't expect people to walk into their paths. Most normal folks cannot see many things that aren't illuminated. Looking at the video alone, totally understandable that he didn't see the pedestrian until too late. me personally didn't see the pedestrian until like a split second before the car hit him. Now you can argue Uber's radar didn't pick it up, but that's not my argument here


----------



## Taxi2Uber

AZDOT stated after Gov. Ducey signed an executive order to allow SDC to test in AZ,"
_"Part of what makes Arizona an ideal place for Uber and other companies to test autonomous vehicle technology is that there are no special permits or licensing required," the ADOT release said. "In Arizona, autonomous vehicles have the same registration requirements as any other vehicle, and nothing in state law prevents testing autonomous vehicles."_

The Police Chief said what she was supposed to say? She understands the game.
(The Police Chief is a woman, by the way, to those who keeping using "he" in your posts , the spokesperson is a man)
Did you expect "Well, the Gov allowed these SDC here in the Wild West to test on all you guinea pig citizens. This SDC race to the front will likely put you in danger, but if something happens, don't worry, we'll side with the companies lining our pockets."
Be real.
They'll just find "experts" to say what some of you have said. "Not the SDC car fault. Unavoidable. Done. Move on."

Amid growing safety concerns, increased media pressures, and Waymo's announcement of FULLY autonomous SDC soon hitting the streets, Gov Ducey signed another executive order, on March 1, putting some regulations on FULLY autonomous cars. Gov spokesman said, _"...the state would not be liable if a fully autonomous vehicle being tested on Arizona roads negligently killed someone, despite the state's advocacy of the vehicles."_
Guess they saw something bad coming.


----------



## LA_Native

Bart McCoy said:


> not sure if you wrote that right, you expect drivers to see areas of the road that aren't illuminated [by the car's lights]? oh really


 Really.



Bart McCoy said:


> but see, to make you're point, you're discrediting the other's guy point when he said "come out of no whwere". That's playing semantics really. We all know humans don't poof magically come out of thin air, smh. Either you knew what the guy meant or you really thought a magician created a guy and a bike in 1 second before the car got there.


Saying "she came out of nowhere" isn't a point. But to whom are you referring?



Bart McCoy said:


> so again, we are obviously talking about visibility. Its night. Most normal folks don't expect people to walk into their paths. Most normal folks cannot see many things that aren't illuminated. Looking at the video alone, totally understandable that he didn't see the pedestrian until too late. me personally didn't see the pedestrian until like a split second before the car hit him.


Where did I say it wasn't understandable that he (who you're talking about, I haven't a clue) didn't see the pedestrian until too late?



Bart McCoy said:


> not sure if you wrote that right, you expect drivers to see areas of the road that aren't illuminated [by the car's lights]Now you can argue Uber's radar didn't pick it up, but that's not my argument here


 That's not really an argument, is it? I mean, do you believe (or would you believe if asserted) that the radar did detect the pedestrian crossing the road? And even if it did detect the ped, not much argument (none really that I can imagine) in that the car reacted accordingly (not taking any evasive action) to a ped crossing the road.


----------



## Uberfunitis

I don't think legally SDC's are held to a higher standard than what would have been expected of a human driver. Are there jurisdictions that indeed do hold the SDC to a higher standard at this time?


----------



## heynow321

LA_Native said:


> Only thing is, it's not possible for anyone to come out of nowhere. I get that people, who have an agenda, purposely act daft, but reasonable people know "nowhere" aren't areas of the road where the car's lights don't illuminate. I'm am often able to see areas of the road that aren't illuminated by my car's headlights. However, I understand that people have an agenda and will act obtuse to forward that agenda, even at the cost of appearing moronic to deny the obvious.
> .


Hey that's exactly what old man ramz and greg do.


----------



## Taxi2Uber

<sigh>
_"That spot is east of the second, western-side Mill Avenue bridge that is restricted to southbound traffic, and east of the Marquee Theatre and a parking lot for the Tempe Town Lake. It can be a popular area for pedestrians, especially concertgoers, joggers, and lake visitors. Mid-street crossing is common there, and a walkway in the median between the two one-way roads across the two bridges probably encourages the practice.

Pedestrians can cross a street without using a crosswalk in many instances without risking a jaywalking ticket, but Arizona law requires pedestrians not using a crosswalk to yield to traffic in the road."
_
So, despite what you want to believe, She did not cross in an unlawful location. You can argue, she didn't yield to traffic, but crossing without a crosswalk is not itself unlawful.
If a SDC can only recognize a pedestrian crossing in a crosswalk, then they need to halt operation immediately.


----------



## LA_Native

Uberfunitis said:


> I don't think legally SDC's are held to a higher standard than what would have been expected of a human driver.


Seems doubtful that they would be. But the PR from knowing that SDCs isn't legally expected to be more safe, and are potentially more dangerous, in a certain situations -- for example, a group of children playing on the sidewalk along a road when one darts onto the street, for example, might be the demise of SDCs.

If I see a group of children on the sidewalk right along side where I'm driving, I slow down in the event a child does what children are wont to do (behave without thinking, and run onto the road). Would current SDCs behave similarly in a similar situation? It didn't, in this case (where a person, hardly darting, entered the road and then the path of the SDC).


----------



## Uberfunitis

LA_Native said:


> Seems doubtful that they would be. But the PR from knowing that SDCs isn't legally expected to be more safe, and are potentially more dangerous, in a certain situations -- for example, a group of children playing on the sidewalk along a road when one darts onto the street, for example, might be the demise of SDCs.
> 
> If I see a group of children on the sidewalk right along side where I'm driving, I slow down in the event a child does what children are wont to do (behave without thinking, and run onto the road). Would current SDCs behave similarly in a similar situation? It didn't, in this case (where a person, hardly darting, entered the road and then the path of the SDC).


I actually don't think it will be that big of a PR nightmare for SDC and Uber in the long run. I think the more damaging thing out of this entire incident is the fact that Uber has felons driving their vehicles. How safe are women going to feel riding in a vehicle with a stranger and wondering if a felon is her driver.

Uber will claim to have fixed this problem after their stand down and all will be good until the next accident and wash and repeat.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

the Uberfunitis' and BartMccoy's are going to defend sdc's to their death, it doesn't really matter what evidence you show them

the other 99.99999% percent of the people have common sense based on the evidence


----------



## LA_Native

Uberfunitis said:


> I actually don't think it will be that big of a PR nightmare for SDC and Uber in the long run. I think the more damaging thing out of this entire incident is the fact that Uber has felons driving their vehicles. How safe are women going to feel riding in a vehicle with a stranger and wondering if a felon is her driver.


We'll see.

But I'm sure SDC opponents will hammer the question: "why didn't the car 'see' the pedestrian and metal bike crossing the road? And if it did see her and the bike, why did it fail to take any action at all to avoid the collision?"



Uberfunitis said:


> Uber will claim to have fixed this problem after their stand down and all will be good until the next accident and wash and repeat.


Problem that Uber has to fix? What problem are you suggesting there is that Uber has to claim it fixed?


----------



## dkhoser

Uberfunitis said:


> I actually don't think it will be that big of a PR nightmare for SDC and Uber in the long run. I think the more damaging thing out of this entire incident is the fact that Uber has felons driving their vehicles. How safe are women going to feel riding in a vehicle with a stranger and wondering if a felon is her driver.
> 
> Uber will claim to have fixed this problem after their stand down and all will be good until the next accident and wash and repeat.


law abiding citizens dont sign up or are lioking for jobs that pay $3 an hour or 1971 minimum fares in 2018.

felons do
seniors on fixed incomes do
immigrants from countries where $1 a day is cool do
desperate people living pay check to pay check with not many options do

see where im going with this? as a rider if youre paying $7 & the driver only gets $2 meaning the driver only values themselves at $2 how much do you think they value the sack of meat in the back?

Until drivers are grossing a minimum $10 per trip meaning these companies start charging actual costs of having a Private driver & chauffeur its all a scam

Actual respectful adults started taking xl, select & still tipping a while ago or it doesn't take too long for them if they actually value the service

black is the wanna ball out forca night or event set

x you just gotta cancel unless its a ride you want for me its 30+ miles luckily the airport far away

opted out of pool day one never accepted one

x / pool users/drivers are the same parasite host dirtbags uber are using each other, if you tell an algorithm to keep pissing on you it will.

unfortunately what we need now is a google car to take out a meat bag so this silliness can go ro the back burner cuz at the end if the day you being driven around in a fancy machine & a flock of birds decides to take a dump & its lights out doesnt sound like a feature but a bug you cant design for

paintballs
mud
eggs
bugs

sure they'll be redundent but still

i also dont trust any of these companies products im sure not letting go of the wheel in one of their cars geez isnt the tech mantra Trust No One but i guess since they will have a settlement price for deaths so the poor can look at it as life insurance, die in one your family will get a house woohoo

im all for em but has any even looked ad the infrastructure in this country or travelled?


----------



## Uberfunitis

LA_Native said:


> We'll see.
> 
> But I'm sure SDC opponents will hammer the question: "why didn't the car 'see' the pedestrian and metal bike crossing the road? And if it did see her and the bike, why did it fail to take any action at all to avoid the collision?"
> 
> Problem that Uber has to fix? What problem are you suggesting there is that Uber has to claim it fixed?


SDC opponents will always be there but over time as more and more people become more comfortable with the whole deal they will be increasingly drowned out.

As to Uber and the SDC there is always room for improvement and I am sure that they will release each upgrade. That is not admitting any fault on their part but it would be nice and I am sure that their goal is to have a vehicle that is "safer than a human driver" currently I am not sure that they can argue that point at most it is as safe as a human driver but that is debatable to the SDC haters.



dkhoser said:


> law abiding citizens dont sign up or are lioking for jobs that pay $3 an hour or 1971 minimum fares in 2018.
> 
> felons do
> seniors on fixed incomes do
> immigrants from countries where $1 a day is cool do
> desperate people living pay check to pay check with not many options do
> 
> see where im going with this? as a rider if youre paying $7 & the driver only gets $2 meaning the driver only values themselves at $2 how much do you think they value the sack of meat in the back?
> 
> Until drivers are grossing a minimum $10 per trip meaning these companies start charging actual costs of having a Private driver & chauffeur its all a scam
> 
> Actual respectful adults started taking xl, select & still tipping a while ago or it doesn't take too long for them if they actually value the service
> 
> black is the wanna ball out forca night or event set
> 
> x you just gotta cancel unless its a ride you want for me its 30+ miles luckily the airport far away
> 
> opted out of pool day one never accepted one
> 
> x / pool users/drivers are the same parasite host dirtbags uber are using each other, if you tell an algorithm to keep pissing on you it will.


We have a vastly different experience out there. The drivers that I meet are for the most part kind and seem nice. As to the $3 / hour that was admitted that study was messed up and they have moved the amount up. I see you really look down on your fellow drivers who are willing to do X and pool.


----------



## dkhoser

Uberfunitis said:


> SDC opponents will always be there but over time as more and more people become more comfortable with the whole deal they will be increasingly drowned out.
> 
> As to Uber and the SDC there is always room for improvement and I am sure that they will release each upgrade. That is not admitting any fault on their part but it would be nice and I am sure that their goal is to have a vehicle that is "safer than a human driver" currently I am not sure that they can argue that point at most it is as safe as a human driver but that is debatable to the SDC haters.
> 
> We have a vastly different experience out there. The drivers that I meet are for the most part kind and seem nice. As to the $3 / hour that was admitted that study was messed up and they have moved the amount up. I see you really look down on your fellow drivers who are willing to do X and pool.


they look down on themselves

strippers & waitresses really like you too lmao, if they tell ya the truth that it's an evil ponzi scam & how evil the company is that 0% of tip, if its hey great part time gig pays the bills cant complain they have a 30% chance of a tip which means double, triple, quadruple, quintuple their hourly rate lmao

the study was right on the nose & uber bribed em to change it no reason for MIT to figure out a 1971 minimum fare in 2018 is less than minimum wage lmao

foh

3+ years imma 1%er

in 2015 they tried to pay me $2.40
in 2018 its $4

eitherway after gas its less than $2 someting you give a server to deliver a bottle or plate 100 feet or a boy in 1985 to take the trash to the curb, not to drive 1-5 miles pick up 100-500 pounds of school shooters & alcoholic junkies & deliver them 1-5 miles, if you dont respect your life that much neither do i. people died for minimum wage/human rights & general labor laws,

a 1971 minimum fare

5th grade math only

every ride under 10 miles on x or pool drivers lose $ on to the tune of a 96% failure rate


----------



## LA_Native

Uberfunitis said:


> As to Uber and the SDC there is always room for improvement and I am sure that they will release each upgrade. That is not admitting any fault on their part but it would be nice and I am sure that their goal is to have a vehicle that is "safer than a human driver" currently I am not sure that they can argue that point at most it is as safe as a human driver but that is debatable to the SDC haters.


So after pointing out you said Uber will say they "fixed [the] problem," suddenly, "out of nowhere," you're saying "room for improvement." lol 
Yeah, a SDC killing a pedestrian because it possibly failed to detect a pedestrian and a bike crossing the road would signal there's "room for improvement"; some, who don't have an agenda to support Uber, might term it, without retraction or equivocation, a problem


----------



## Uberfunitis

LA_Native said:


> So after pointing out you said Uber will say they "fixed [the] problem," suddenly, "out of nowhere," you're saying "room for improvement." lol
> Yeah, a SDC killing a pedestrian because it possibly failed to detect a pedestrian and a bike crossing the road would signal there's "room for improvement"; some, who don't have an agenda to support Uber, might term it, without retraction or equivocation, a problem


Its only a problem if the SDC is legally expected to perform better than a human. That is not the case currently, so no problem but room for improvement none the less.


----------



## LA_Native

Uberfunitis said:


> Its only a problem if the SDC is legally expected to perform better than a human. That is not the case currently, so no problem but room for improvement none the less.


Out of no where, it's now "only a problem if the SDC is legally expected to perform better than a human." That's not what you said before...


----------



## Uberfunitis

LA_Native said:


> Out of no where, it's now "only a problem if the SDC is legally expected to perform better than a human." That's not what you said before...


That is exactly what I said before, I was holding that SDC and the safety monitor to the current legal requirements. The pedestrian did come out of nowhere of course she did not teleport there but she was not visible one moment and then the next moment she was and it was too late at that point under current standards. I have not changed that at all, if you are thinking that I am holding the SDC at a higher standard than you did not understand me at all.


----------



## tohunt4me

I


LA_Native said:


> You'd think one of the "featured" threads would be about the autonomous car killing the pedestrian...


INstead of a Large Subliminal graphic saying " FORGIVEN "?

Nahhhhh . . . .

{ OBEY}

nahhhhh . . .

N


LA_Native said:


> Out of no where, it's now "only a problem if the SDC is legally expected to perform better than a human." That's not what you said before...


NArrative changes

{ Dont Question}

Situations change.

{ OBEY}

Simple


----------



## Bart McCoy

Uberfunitis said:


> I have not changed that at all, if you are thinking that I am holding the SDC at a higher standard than you did not understand me at all.


Pretty much everybody who says Uber is at fault is saying SDC should be held at a higher standard and make them go by superlaws, as I call them


----------



## LA_Native

Uberfunitis said:


> That is exactly what I said before


Sure it is. You said that Uber will say they fixed some problem. What is the nature of the problem you referenced?



Bart McCoy said:


> Pretty much everybody who says Uber is at fault is saying SDC should be held at a higher standard, make them go by superlaws as I call them


So, you're of the opinion there is no fault on the part of the SDC?


----------



## tohunt4me

Uberfunitis said:


> Yes, I would expect him to pay attention though. I am not saying he could have done anything either way but the video did make it seem like he was distracted with something else, not that I think that would have changed the outcome any.


So
What were the qualifications of this " "Safety Assurance Quality Control Agent"

Ability to sit in car all night during no traffic volume hours of testing ?

Can i join this " A" team ?

I is teknission.


----------



## Uberfunitis

LA_Native said:


> Sure it is. You said that Uber will say they fixed some problem. What is the nature of the problem you referenced?
> 
> So, you're of the opinion there is no fault on the part of the SDC?


I am of the opinion based on what I know at this time that there is no fault on the part of the SDC. The fault in this tragic incident in my opinion is completely with the pedestrian.


----------



## tohunt4me

LA_Native said:


> Sure it is. You said that Uber will say they fixed some problem. What is the nature of the problem you referenced?
> 
> So, you're of the opinion there is no fault on the part of the SDC?


PICHFORKS & TORCHES !
5 a.m.
Corporate Parking Lot.

Save the Humans Rally.


----------



## LA_Native

Uberfunitis said:


> I am of the opinion based on what I know at this time that there is no fault on the part of the SDC.


Should have wrote: "Yeah, you caught my Freudian slip." Same sentiment but with the benefit of fewer keystrokes.


----------



## tohunt4me

Uberfunitis said:


> I am of the opinion based on what I know at this time that there is no fault on the part of the SDC.


Oh come onnnn

Really

Redundant detection sensor Failure ?

No one can pay me to lie to myself !

Its a Miracle the Contraption managed to stay between the lines.


----------



## Bart McCoy

LA_Native said:


> Sure it is. You said that Uber will say they fixed some problem. What is the nature of the problem you referenced?
> 
> So, you're of the opinion there is no fault on the part of the SDC?


There's 2 things here. A driver/car being responsible for negligence of a pedestrian. The driver/car should not be held responsible for not performing a superhero act by jamming on brakes, dodging, swerving, and taking care not to hit other innocent pedestrians or cars....

As for SDC technology, sure, you can say it failed, if facts come out the car "did nothing". I don't have or see those facts as of yet.


----------



## tohunt4me

LA_Native said:


> Should have wrote: "Yeah, you caught my Freudian slip." Same sentiment but with the benefit of fewer keystrokes.


Rushin hackerz


----------



## Uberfunitis

LA_Native said:


> Should have wrote: "Yeah, you caught my Freudian slip." Same sentiment but with the benefit of fewer keystrokes.


There was no slip, I do think that the SDC can and should be improved in the future, No system human or computer will be able to avoid all unpredictable humans though.


----------



## tohunt4me

Bart McCoy said:


> There's 2 things here. A driver/car being responsible for negligence of a pedestrian. The driver/car should not be held responsible for not performing a superhero act by jamming on brakes, dodging, swerving, and taking care not to hit other innocent pedestrians or cars....
> 
> As for SDC technology, sure, you can say it failed, if facts come out the car "did nothing". I don't have or see those facts as of yet.


Braking is " common courtesy"
Not super hero.

( recycling is a vast improvement of Robo Killer)


----------



## LA_Native

Bart McCoy said:


> There's 2 things here. A driver/car being responsible for negligence of a pedestrian. The driver/car should not be held responsible for not performing a superhero act by jamming on brakes, dodging, swerving, and taking care not to hit other innocent pedestrians or cars....
> 
> As for SDC technology, sure, you can say it failed, if facts come out the car "did nothing". I don't have or see those facts as of yet.


You don't have all the facts, but you're positive that it would have taken an act of "superhero" proportions to have avoided the collision. Yeah, no bias here.



Uberfunitis said:


> There was no slip,


Incorrect.
Or are you ready to highlight the problem _you_ said Uber will have to claim to fix?


----------



## Uberfunitis

LA_Native said:


> You don't have all the facts, but you're positive that it would have taken an act of "superhero" proportions to have avoided the collision. Yeah, no bias here.
> 
> Incorrect.
> Or are you ready to highlight the problem _you_ said Uber will have to claim to fix?


You seem to know what I am typing and will only accept what you believe I was typing, so you tell me. A hint though I actually typed what I intended to say and yes there are problems with SDC currently and one of those problems is that they are not able to be better than their human counterparts though that is not a requirement at this point.


----------



## iheartuber

Bart McCoy said:


> No way you can know for sure. You have x-ray vision? hard to see the person/bike until car was right upon it.


 Here is how I came to that conclusion: I am able to see a brief glimpse of the pedestrian at four seconds before impact on the video.

Four seconds is plenty of time for me to either slow down swerve or slam on the brakes to avoid a fatality. Additionally, I would honk loudly on my horn to alert the pedestrian which the robot obviously did not do.

Finally, it is important to note that this is all from just working off of this low light video. In real life I probably would be able to see the victim sooner than four seconds.

No x-ray vision needed.


----------



## LA_Native

If the car didn't "fail'; then I'd opine there's a tremendous problem. That would mean, in this case, the car has/had no ability to detect the pedestrian and bike in the midst of crossing road and about to enter its path. I imagine I'd not be alone in seeing the problem here in a that not being a failure.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

LA_Native said:


> Out of no where, it's now "only a problem if the SDC is legally expected to perform better than a human." That's not what you said before...


you're going to keep going in circles with this guy and Bart Mccoy, dude. There's really no point

i feel like they get paid by Uber to shill here and given what we know about Uber we can't rule that out


----------



## LA_Native

Uberfunitis said:


> You seem to know what I am typing


Correction. I (as well as anyone able to read English) knows what you typ*ed*.


----------



## Uberfunitis

LA_Native said:


> If the car didn't "fail'; then I'd opine there's a tremendous problem. That would mean, in this case, the car has/had no ability to detect the pedestrian and bike in the midst of crossing road and about to enter its path. I imagine I'd not be alone in seeing the problem here in a that not being a failure.


Even if the vehicle did fail from my reading in that state outside of a designated crossing area a pedestrian is required to yield the right of way to the vehicle. So even if there was a failure of the vehicle that would not make the SDC responsible in this situation, the fault remains on the pedestrian.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Bart McCoy said:


> Pretty much everybody who says Uber is at fault is saying SDC should be held at a higher standard and make them go by superlaws, as I call them


any idiot would have stopped hundreds of feet before hitting the huge wingspan object in front

the only reason the driver didn't is because he wasn't looking


----------



## Uberfunitis

uberdriverfornow said:


> any idiot would have stopped hundreds of feet before hitting the huge wingspan object in front
> 
> the only reason the driver didn't is because he wasn't looking


We will see if Uber is convicted of any criminal wrong doing in this, my bet is that they will not be.


----------



## tohunt4me

Uberfunitis said:


> Even if the vehicle did fail from my reading in that state outside of a designated crossing area a pedestrian is required to yield the right of way to the vehicle. So even if there was a failure of the vehicle that would not make the SDC responsible in this situation, the fault remains on the pedestrian.


Yet
The walker had completed over 80% of the crossing journey.
There was only 1 Marked crossing in 2 mile stretch.
The state has applicable laws concerning crossings in non marked zones.

Level of completion of crossing by pedestrian indicates simple cautious braking could have been " normally expected".

Teach ROBO CARS ROAD ETIQUETTE !

Someome turns left in front of me from short distance away.
Technically i have right of way.
Should i not brake ?

Damage to right lateral edge of fender indicates accident was not centered.
Walker was virtually clear.
Simple braking or slight drift to left could have been life saving.


----------



## Uberfunitis

tohunt4me said:


> Yet
> The walker had completed over 80% of the crodsing journey.
> There was only 1 Marked crossing in 2 mile stretch.
> The state has applicable laws concerning crossings in non marked zones.
> 
> Level of completion of crossing by pedestrian indicates simple cautious braking could have been " normally expected".
> 
> Teach ROBO CARS ROAD ETIQUETTE !


Perhaps those expectations need to be adjusted if one values their safety they will ensure that they can cross 100% of the road safely. I know when I see a vehicle traveling down the road at night and I am crossing the road I certainly do not expect that they will see me and slow down for me. I cross with enough time to clear the entire road and avoid the oncoming vehicle.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Uberfunitis said:


> We will see if Uber is convicted of any criminal wrong doing in this, my bet is that they will not be.


clearly you have very little ethical traits

even if not criminally liable you have to be heartless to think there is nothing wrong with a passenger being killed

what if that wasnt just some lady, but was instead your 5 year old daughter ?

would it still be fine ?


----------



## tohunt4me

Uberfunitis said:


> Perhaps those expectations need to be adjusted if one values their safety they will ensure that they can cross 100% of the road safely. I know when I see a vehicle traveling down the road at night and I am crossing the road I certainly do not expect that they will see me and slow down for me. I cross with enough time to clear the entire road and avoid the oncoming vehicle.


The area of Arizona has " country" morales.
A resident
Such as the killed walker
Would expect common couresy of driver going around.
Country folk do this.
Without feeling the need to run someone down because of technical jaywalking.

Obviously
Robo Car wasnt Raised Right !

Robo Car VIOLATED the " UNRITTEN CODE" of Civility.


----------



## Uberfunitis

uberdriverfornow said:


> clearly you have very little ethical traits
> 
> even if not criminally liable you have to be heartless to think there is nothing wrong with a passenger being killed
> 
> what if that wasnt just some lady, but was instead your 5 year old daughter ?
> 
> would it still be fine ?


Again I am not sure from the video that it was avoidable at all. Second my kid better not be crossing the road without me and will be taught how to cross the road safely. Of course I would be sad and angry if she got hurt but that does not change the fact that the person crossing the road in this situation had the responsibility to cross safely and to yield the right of way.


----------



## Bart McCoy

tohunt4me said:


> No one can pay me to lie to myself !


Everybody has a price!!!


----------



## LA_Native

Uberfunitis said:


> Even if the vehicle did fail from my reading in that state outside of a designated crossing area a pedestrian is required to yield the right of way to the vehicle. So even if there was a failure of the vehicle that would not make the SDC responsible in this situation, the fault remains on the pedestrian.


TBH, I can't think of a scenario where I wouldn't think the pedestrian to be, at the very least, partially at fault. However, that the SDC seems to have not discerned (due to either failure to work properly or failure to program it do so) there was a pedestrian in the midst of crossing the street.

Again, if there were kids playing on the sidewalk adjacent to the road and one of them look about ready to dart into the street, I'd expect (though not necessarily find legally culpable for not doing so) a human driver to slow in anticipation of kid darting into his/her path. And if a SDC cannot do that (anticipate children acting as children and drive accordingly) 100% of the time, then I don't think SDCs belong on the road. I'm sure others will disagree, and that's fine. But I will say it's idiotic to term that expectation (anticipating kids playing on the side of the road might dart out into traffic) as being "superhero" or "superhuman."


----------



## tohunt4me

Bart McCoy said:


> Everybody has a price!!!


Probably so.



Uberfunitis said:


> Again I am not sure from the video that it was avoidable at all. Second my kid better not be crossing the road without me and will be taught how to cross the road safely. Of course I would be sad and angry if she got hurt but that does not change the fact that the person crossing the road in this situation had the responsibility to cross safely and to yield the right of way.


You would lie awake at night asking
Why didnt they brake.
Why didnt they swerve.
Then you would develop a pill and alcohol habit to quiet the questioning voices.
20 years later
They would be louder.
You would pass out
Not sleep.


----------



## Bart McCoy

iheartuber said:


> Here is how I came to that conclusion: I am able to see a brief glimpse of the pedestrian at four seconds before impact on the video.
> 
> Four seconds is plenty of time for me to either slow down swerve or slam on the brakes to avoid a fatality. Additionally, I would honk loudly on my horn to alert the pedestrian which the robot obviously did not do.
> 
> Finally, it is important to note that this is all from just working off of this low light video. In real life I probably would be able to see the victim sooner than four seconds.
> 
> No x-ray vision needed.


Good for you. Too bad the general public aren't professional NASCAR drivers or part-time Marvel superheros



uberdriverfornow said:


> any idiot would have stopped hundreds of feet before hitting the huge wingspan object in front
> 
> the only reason the driver didn't is because he wasn't looking


So is it safe to assume you would be one of those idiots????????



Uberfunitis said:


> We will see if Uber is convicted of any criminal wrong doing in this, my bet is that they will not be.


They wont



uberdriverfornow said:


> c
> 
> what if that wasnt just some lady, but was instead your 5 year old daughter ?
> 
> would it still be fine ?


Why is your 5yr old daughter running out in front of moving cars late at night?
It doesn't matter who is running out in the streets, you just want the driver of the car to play superhero for that person's negligence. Check.


----------



## tohunt4me

LA_Native said:


> TBH, I can't think of a scenario where I wouldn't think the pedestrian to be, at the very least, partially at fault. However, that the SDC seems to have not discerned (due to either failure to work properly or failure to program it do so) there was a pedestrian in the midst of crossing the street.
> 
> Again, if there were kids playing on the sidewalk adjacent to the road and one of them look about ready to dart into the street, I'd expect (though not necessarily find legally culpable for not doing so) a human driver to slow in anticipation of kid darting into his/her path. And if a SDC cannot do that (anticipate children acting as children and drive accordingly) 100% of the time, then I don't think SDCs belong on the road. I'm sure others will disagree, and that's fine. But I will say it's idiotic to term that expectation (anticipating kids playing on the side of the road might dart out into traffic) as being "superhero" or "superhuman."


Ever see the video of cop chasing shopping cart with baby down the higheay ?
Buggy rolled away while mom unloaded.
Still no parking brakes on buggies . . .


----------



## Uberfunitis

LA_Native said:


> TBH, I can't think of a scenario where I wouldn't think the pedestrian to be, at the very least, partially at fault. However, that the SDC seems to have not discerned (due to either failure to work properly or failure to program it do so) there was a pedestrian in the midst of crossing the street.
> 
> Again, if there were kids playing on the sidewalk adjacent to the road and one of them look about ready to dart into the street, I'd expect (though not necessarily find legally culpable for not doing so) a human driver to slow in anticipation of kid darting into his/her path. And if a SDC cannot do that (anticipate children acting as children and drive accordingly) 100% of the time, then I don't think SDCs belong on the road. I'm sure others will disagree, and that's fine. But I will say it's idiotic to term that expectation (anticipating kids playing on the side of the road might dart out into traffic) as being "superhero" or "superhuman."


I do agree that the SDC ability to discern such is something that needs to be worked on. Those problems I would imagine are why there are safety monitors in the vehicle. I do wish that this one would have been paying more attention. I don't know if it would have made a difference but there would have been a greater chance of nothing happening.


----------



## tohunt4me

Ba


Bart McCoy said:


> Good for you. Too bad the general public aren't professional NASCAR drivers or part-time Marvel superheros
> 
> So is it safe to assume you would be one of those idiots????????
> 
> They wont
> 
> Why is your 5yr old daughter running out in front of moving cars late at night?
> It doesn't matter who is running out in the streets, you just want the driver of the car to play superhero for that person's negligence. Check.


Baby wanted to " See theEaster Bunny"
Kids are curious.
Most survive.
Takes the whole village
To raise a child.


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4

If the car can’t detect someone waking a bike a cross 4+ lanes of traffic there’s a problem.

I know it’s dark but I can see someone walking across several lanes of traffic.

Here’s another part a LOT of you arnt considering.

Laws of physics aside...

If I slam on my brakes before hitting her I will start decelerating before Impact.
Slower speed= less energy= fewer injuries.

She was negligent in not paying enough attention to slam on the brakes.


I feel like I wouldn’t have hit her,

But I KNOW I could have slammed on my brakes.

And that might have made enough difference not to kill her.


----------



## tohunt4me

Uberfunitis said:


> I do agree that the SDC ability to discern such is something that needs to be worked on. Those problems I would imagine are why there are safety monitors in the vehicle. I do wish that this one would have been paying more attention. I don't know if it would have made a difference but there would have been a greater chance of nothing happening.


That " safety Monitor" was the equivalent of Homer Simpson at his Nuclear Control Panel.

Automation breeds Complacency.
Bottom Line.



Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> If the car can't detect someone waking a bike a cross 4+ lanes of traffic there's a problem.
> 
> I know it's dark but I can see someone walking across several lanes of traffic.
> 
> Here's another part a LOT of you arnt considering.
> 
> Laws of physics aside...
> 
> If I slam on my brakes before hitting her I will start decelerating before Impact.
> Slower speed= less energy= fewer injuries.
> 
> She was negligent in not paying enough attention to slam on the brakes.
> 
> I feel like I wouldn't have hit her,
> 
> But I KNOW I could have slammed on my brakes.
> 
> And that might have made enough difference not to kill her.


That was a Deep dent in the hood of a Sturdy S.U.V.
Brakes & cut wheel.


----------



## LA_Native

tohunt4me said:


> Ever see the video of cop chasing shopping cart with baby down the higheay ?
> Buggy rolled away while mom unloaded.
> Still no parking brakes on buggies . . .


No. And hard to believe there are not parking brakes for a baby buggy (strollers too)?


----------



## tohunt4me

LA_Native said:


> No. And hard to believe there are not parking brakes for a baby buggy (strollers too)?


Was a Grocery Shopping Cart.
She had kept baby in seat area of grocery cart to stay cool while loading car.
Seems like a simple foot operated flap on 1 wheel would be standard. But its not.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Bart McCoy said:


> Good for you. Too bad the general public aren't professional NASCAR drivers or part-time Marvel superheros
> 
> So is it safe to assume you would be one of those idiots????????
> 
> They wont
> 
> Why is your 5yr old daughter running out in front of moving cars late at night?
> It doesn't matter who is running out in the streets, you just want the driver of the car to play superhero for that person's negligence. Check.


hell ya, like i said, ANY idiot

and thats what kids do they jump out in front of cars...like i said, ANY idiot would have stopped in time


----------



## NorCalPhil

tohunt4me said:


> That " safety Monitor" was the equivalent of Homer Simpson at his Nuclear Control Panel.


mmmm donuts...


----------



## Bart McCoy

Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> If the car can't detect someone waking a bike a cross 4+ lanes of traffic there's a problem.
> 
> I know it's dark but I can see someone walking across several lanes of traffic.
> 
> Here's another part a LOT of you arnt considering.
> 
> Laws of physics aside...
> 
> If I slam on my brakes before hitting her I will start decelerating before Impact.
> Slower speed= less energy= fewer injuries.
> 
> She was negligent in not paying enough attention to slam on the brakes.
> 
> I feel like I wouldn't have hit her,
> 
> But I KNOW I could have slammed on my brakes.
> 
> And that might have made enough difference not to kill her.


oh okay. So the message here isn't to cross at crosswalks, or to actually look for oncoming traffic before crossing, the message is to slam on brakes. That's what you get out of this whole incident?


----------



## Taxi2Uber

LA_Native said:


> If the car didn't "fail'; then I'd opine there's a tremendous problem. That would mean, in this case, the car has/had no ability to detect the pedestrian and bike in the midst of crossing road and about to enter its path. I imagine I'd not be alone in seeing the problem here in a that not being a failure.


Or worse yet, the SDC DID detect the pedestrian, and "decided" it was not an issue.


Uberfunitis said:


> Even if the vehicle did fail from my reading in that state outside of a designated crossing area a pedestrian is required to yield the right of way to the vehicle. So even if there was a failure of the vehicle that would not make the SDC responsible in this situation, the fault remains on the pedestrian.


The problem is you're combining issues. Being legally responsible or liable is one thing. Whether the accident or death was unavoidable is another. I fully expect Uber to be let off the hook, but given the situation the SDC should have still avoided the accident or lessoned the damage done.
I avoid accidents all day every day. If I did not slow down for every driver that turns in front of me, I would be in numerous not-at-fault accidents every day, but they are avoidable.


----------



## Bart McCoy

Taxi2Uber said:


> Or worse yet, the SDC DID detect the pedestrian, and "decided" it was not an issue.
> 
> The problem is you're combining issues. Being legally responsible or liable is one thing. Whether the accident or death was unavoidable is another. I fully expect Uber to be let off the hook, but given the situation the SDC should have still avoided the accident or lessoned the damage done.
> I avoid accidents all day every day. If I did not slow down for every driver that turns in front of me, I would be in numerous not-at-fault accidents every day, but they are avoidable.


Lets not combine issues.
Lets stick to one issue: fault.
Its real hard for you to admit that by law, no matter if you , I , an Uber car, truck, van , bicycler, or motorcycler hit the person, the pedestrian is CLEARLY at fault. C L E A R L Y

Why are people trying to bypass this original fault and lay it on Uber simply because they had a computer behind the wheel???????????

Anybody that doesn't admit the pedestrian is at fault, clearly simply has an obvious agenda out for Uber. So much it clogs their mind to be able to have clear thinking

Why are you harping on why Uber couldn't avoid hitting the pedestrian, instead of why in the world didn't the pedestrian avoid getting hit???????????? He could have done that easily by simply looking before crossing the street. If you see bright headlights, me thinks you shouldn't cross the road. If I'm the only one that thinks that, I'll happily be alone!!!!


----------



## Uberfunitis

Taxi2Uber said:


> Or worse yet, the SDC DID detect the pedestrian, and "decided" it was not an issue.
> 
> The problem is you're combining issues. Being legally responsible or liable is one thing. Whether the accident or death was unavoidable is another. I fully expect Uber to be let off the hook, but given the situation the SDC should have still avoided the accident or lessoned the damage done.
> I avoid accidents all day every day. If I did not slow down for every driver that turns in front of me, I would be in numerous not-at-fault accidents every day, but they are avoidable.


I am not sure that it was avoidable either based on the camera footage.



Bart McCoy said:


> Lets not combine issues.
> Lets stick to one issue: fault.
> Its real hard for you to admit that by law, no matter if you , I , an Uber car, truck, van , bicycler, or motorcycler hit the person, the pedestrian is CLEARLY at fault. C L E A R L Y
> 
> Why are people trying to bypass this original fault and lay it on Uber simply because they had a computer behind the wheel???????????
> 
> Anybody that doesn't admit the pedestrian is at fault, clearly simply has an obvious agenda out for Uber. So much it clogs their mind to be able to have clear thinking
> 
> Why are you harping on why Uber couldn't avoid hitting the pedestrian, instead of why in the world didn't the pedestrian avoid getting hit???????????? He could have done that easily by simply looking before crossing the street. If you see bright headlights, me thinks you shouldn't cross the road. If I'm the only one that thinks that, I'll happily be alone!!!!


I do think determining fault is the first step in seeing what could have / should have been done to avoid the situation. Depending on who was at fault determines that end conclusion greatly.


----------



## Bart McCoy

Uberfunitis said:


> I am not sure that it was avoidable either based on the camera footage.
> 
> I do think determining fault is the first step in seeing what could have / should have been done to avoid the situation. Depending on who was at fault determines that end conclusion greatly.


Well true, but the easiest way to avoid all of this of course would be to cross at a crosswalk, preferably with a crossing light, or of course, simply looking for cars, before you cross a road.


----------



## Taxi2Uber

Bart McCoy said:


> Lets not combine issues.
> Lets stick to one issue: fault.
> Its real hard for you to admit that by law, no matter if you , I , an Uber car, truck, van , bicycler, or motorcycler hit the person, the pedestrian is CLEARLY at fault. C L E A R L Y
> 
> Why are people trying to bypass this original fault and lay it on Uber simply because they had a computer behind the wheel???????????
> 
> Anybody that doesn't admit the pedestrian is at fault, clearly simply has an obvious agenda out for Uber. So much it clogs their mind to be able to have clear thinking
> 
> Why are you harping on why Uber couldn't avoid hitting the pedestrian, instead of why in the world didn't the pedestrian avoid getting hit???????????? He could have done that easily by simply looking before crossing the street. If you see bright headlights, me thinks you shouldn't cross the road. If I'm the only one that thinks that, I'll happily be alone!!!!


Don't worry. You're not alone. You have Uberfunitis. 
Why am I harping on why Uber couldn't avoid hitting the pedestrian? Because that person died.


----------



## Uberfunitis

Taxi2Uber said:


> Don't worry. You're not alone. You have Uberfunitis.
> Why am I harping on why Uber couldn't avoid hitting the pedestrian? Because that person died.


And that pedestrian could have easily avoided the entire situation, and in fact had a responsibility to do so.


----------



## Taxi2Uber

Bart McCoy said:


> Well true, but the easiest way to avoid all of this of course would be to cross at a crosswalk, preferably with a crossing light, or of course, simply looking for cars, before you cross a road.


So what planet are you living on?
If you want to be silly. If that SDC was not on the road at that point in space and time. There would have been no accident to avoid.


----------



## Uberfunitis

Taxi2Uber said:


> So what planet are you living on?
> If you want to be silly. If that SDC was not on the road at that point in space and time. There would have been no accident to avoid.


Who had the right of way? The vehicle did, it was the legal responsibility of the pedestrian to avoid the vehicle.


----------



## Taxi2Uber

Uberfunitis said:


> And that pedestrian could have easily avoided the entire situation, and in fact had a responsibility to do so.


So if you saw a person crossing the road outside of a crosswalk, you would not slow down and avoid hitting them?
Instead you'll continue at your current rate, muttering "I have the right of way. Get ready for impact"


----------



## NorCalPhil

Uberfunitis said:


> Who had the right of way? The vehicle did, it was the legal responsibility of the pedestrian to avoid the vehicle.


----------



## Uberfunitis

Taxi2Uber said:


> So if you saw a person crossing the road outside of a crosswalk, you would not slow down and avoid hitting them?
> Instead you'll continue at your current rate, muttering "I have the right of way. Get ready for impact"


What I would or would not do is not relevant to the facts on the ground.


----------



## Taxi2Uber

Uberfunitis said:


> Who had the right of way? The vehicle did, it was the legal responsibility of the pedestrian to avoid the vehicle.


You're back to the legality of it. Right or wrong, a situation is presented. Did the SDC perform as it should? I say NO. Was the accident or death avoidable? I say YES.


----------



## Uberfunitis

Taxi2Uber said:


> You're back to the legality of it. Right or wrong, a situation is presented. Did the SDC perform as it should? I say NO. Was the accident or death avoidable? I say YES.


I have no intention of leaving the legality of it, until that part is settled.


----------



## Bob fox

Kalee said:


> Except for one of Uber's primary selling points of self-driving cars was to eliminate human error, accidents ... and death


Yeah.. and they're like 5 self-driving cars on the road. That's hyperbole of course but percentage wise there aren't that many out there. Maybe there should be some test that aren't around people first

Sdc R A b-a-d idea


----------



## Uberfunitis

Taxi2Uber said:


> So if you saw a person crossing the road outside of a crosswalk, you would not slow down and avoid hitting them?
> Instead you'll continue at your current rate, muttering "I have the right of way. Get ready for impact"


Let us turn this the other way as well. You see a vehicle headed down the street that you are crossing. Do you continue at a continual pace and dare the vehicle to hit you or do you slow down or speed up to avoid the vehicle and getting hurt.


----------



## Taxi2Uber

Uberfunitis said:


> Let us turn this the other way as well. You see a vehicle headed down the street that you are crossing. Do you continue at a continual pace and dare the vehicle to hit you or do you slow down or speed up to avoid the vehicle and getting hurt.


What I would or would not do is not relevant to the facts on the ground, but I'll answer after you do.


----------



## Uberfunitis

Taxi2Uber said:


> What I would or would not do is not relevant to the facts on the ground, but I'll answer after you do.


As the vehicle had the right of way and I stood to loose much more than the vehicle I would have slowed down and waited for the vehicle to pass and it was safe to cross.


----------



## JimKE

NorCalPhil said:


>


PERFECT!


----------



## Taxi2Uber

Uberfunitis said:


> As the vehicle had the right of way and I stood to loose much more than the vehicle I would have slowed down and waited for the vehicle to pass and it was safe to cross.


You didn't answer MY question.


----------



## NorCalPhil

Taxi2Uber said:


> You didn't answer MY question.


----------



## LA_Native

Bart McCoy said:


> Why are you harping on why Uber couldn't avoid hitting the pedestrian


I don't why he's "harping" on it, but it seems an important question that should be at least answered before sending them back onto the roads.


----------



## KenLV

Uberfunitis said:


> The pedestrian was crossing the street at night outside of a lawful crossing.





Taxi2Uber said:


> I guess if people say this enough, people actually start to believe it.


What don't you believe about it?
Was it night? Yes.
Was she outside a crosswalk? Yes
Which part do you dispute?



Taxi2Uber said:


> Well, I certainly think I could have avoided killing the pedestrian. So between us 2, that's a 50% chance of survival for her.


You can "think I can, think I can" all you want, but the 2 seconds she's visible prior to contact isn't even enough for reaction time at 40 mph.



Jo3030 said:


> The Police Chief got paid off.


Source?


----------



## JimKE

Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> Slower speed= less energy= fewer injuries.


Exactly.

*Energy = Mass (weight of the SDC) x speed SQUARED*.

So any reduction of speed would result in a much greater reduction in impact than most people think.

Cut the speed in half, from 38 to 19 mph, and you *reduce the impact to 1/4* what the victim suffered. Huge difference.



> She was negligent in not paying enough attention to slam on the brakes.


Based on the speed of the car (38 mph/ 55 feet per second) and average walking speed of 4-5 feet per second, I estimated that the victim was walking across the road for 7-9 seconds...maybe longer... before being struck.

Based on the speed of the car, when she stepped off the median and started across the roadway, the Uber SDC would have been about *383 feet* from her.

The Uber "driver" looked down at his/her phone for at least 5-5 1/2 seconds, looking up only in response to the crash itself.

*Stopping distance*, including reaction time and braking, at 38 mph *is about 110 feet*.

In the five seconds (bare minimum) that the driver was looking at his/her phone* -- the Uber SDC traveled about 275 feet...2.5X THE STOPPING DISTANCE! 

If he/she had been paying attention, nobody would have been injured...much less killed.*


----------



## KenLV

ntcindetroit said:


> There is no sign that can be seen to forbid road user(s) to cross the Mill Ave. from west to east at the point of impact site.


So? What's that got to do with, you know, the law...



KenLV said:


> A. A pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway.


https://uberpeople.net/threads/oper...destrian-was-felon.248494/page-8#post-3747768


----------



## JimKE

KenLV said:


> ...but the 2 seconds she's visible prior to contact isn't even enough for reaction time at 40 mph.


The fallacy here, obviously is that the very poor quality video "vision" is a fraction of what human vision would see (if it had been looking, which it was NOT), and also much less than the SDC is supposed to "see."



KenLV said:


> So? What's that got to do with, you know, the law...


I don't know AZ law, but in Florida the applicable citation to the "driver" would be Careless Driving by Driver Inattention -- conclusively proved by the video of the driver staring at his/her phone for *at least* the last 5 seconds before impact. Not looking up until you hear crunch is the definition of driver inattention.

Whether the victim was crossing the street illegally or not is irrelevant.

I assume she was violating the law by jaywalking. But that doesn't excuse Uber or the driver killing her.


----------



## LA_Native

"'The victim *did not *come out of nowhere. She's moving on a dark road, but *it's an open road*, so Lidar (laser) and radar should have detected and classified her' as a human, said Bryant Walker Smith, a University of South Carolina law professor who studies autonomous vehicles."

"Sam Abuelsmaid, an analyst for Navigant Research who also follows autonomous vehicles, said *laser and radar systems can see in the dark much better than humans or cameras *and that Herzberg was well within the range.

'It absolutely should have been able to pick her up,' he said. 'From what I see in the video it sure looks like the car is at fault, not the pedestrian.'"

https://apnews.com/74f6266086264bbfb0f6c8ed857465f1


----------



## Bart McCoy

Taxi2Uber said:


> So what planet are you living on?
> If you want to be silly. If that SDC was not on the road at that point in space and time. There would have been no accident to avoid.


now this is silly
had the chicken not crossed the road......
if the pedestrian had used normal common strategy of looking for cars before illegally crossing the road, there would have been no accident to avoid


----------



## Taxi2Uber

KenLV said:


> What don't you believe about it?
> Was it night? Yes.
> Was she outside a crosswalk? Yes
> Which part do you dispute?


Simple.
_"The pedestrian was crossing the street at night outside of a lawful crossing."_
I've addressed this already. (may have been another thread)
One can lawfully cross at that location, outside a crosswalk, even at night.


----------



## KenLV

JimKE said:


> The fallacy here, obviously is that the very poor quality video "vision" is a fraction of what human vision would see


The fallacy here is that you want me to make a conclusion based on something other than the evidence we have. I'm not willing to do that. Based on currently available evidence, the pedestrian was visible for no more than 2 seconds prior to impact - which is less time than the average reaction time.



JimKE said:


> I don't know AZ law, but in Florida


But this didn't happen in Florida, so what patters is AZ law. And as I said...

https://uberpeople.net/threads/oper...estrian-was-felon.248494/page-19#post-3753456


----------



## Bart McCoy

LA_Native said:


> I don't why he's "harping" on it, but it seems an important question that should be at least answered before sending them back onto the roads.


More important than why a pedestrian crossed the road illegally?
MOre important than how the pedestrian didn't see a TRUCK with LIGHTS on coming?
MOre important than why a pedestrian assumes they have the right to walk into oncoming traffic and expect to be saved by the vehicle they get in front of ? Really now?



JimKE said:


> T
> 
> Whether the victim was crossing the street illegally or not is irrelevant.


To determine a proper conclusion, that part is 100% relevant.
And is 100% the cause of all of this



Taxi2Uber said:


> One can lawfully cross at that location, outside a crosswalk, even at night.


Oh yeah, even if they can lawfully cross, are you saying one has the right to not look for traffic and the right to walk in front of oncoming traffic endangering the life of the driver? If not, then what's the point of trying to portray its legal, if he was WRONG


----------



## Taxi2Uber

Bart McCoy said:


> now this is silly
> had the chicken not crossed the road......
> if the pedestrian had used normal common strategy of looking for cars before illegally crossing the road, there would have been no accident to avoid


Not any more silly than your bullet points.
I'll appease you here. Let's say the deceased was 100% at fault. (that's your only point) OK? Feel better? Now deep breath...
That doesn't mean that the SDC performed as it should. Are you ready, given the above, to just let Uber SDC back on the road now, business as usual? It should raise questions about WHY didn't the sensors detect the pedestrian? If it did, why didn't the SDC react? Also, was this accident/death avoidable from the SDC's point of view. I say YES. Would a reasonably good human driver been able to avoid this tragedy? Again, YES. All your opinions are based on a dark, fixed, forward facing, narrow viewing dash cam. Real world view is different. Don't you have these questions? You should. And I'm not even mentioning the Lump of a "safety backup driver".


----------



## Bart McCoy

Taxi2Uber said:


> Not any more silly than your bullet points.
> I'll appease you here. Let's say the deceased was 100% at fault. (that's your only point) OK? Feel better? Now deep breath...
> That doesn't mean that the SDC performed as it should. Are you ready, given the above, to just let Uber SDC back on the road now, business as usual? It should raise questions about WHY didn't the sensors detect the pedestrian? If it did, why didn't the SDC react? Also, was this accident/death avoidable from the SDC's point of view. I say YES. Would a reasonably good human driver been able to avoid this tragedy? Again, YES. All your opinions are based on a dark, fixed, forward facing, narrow viewing dash cam. Real world view is different. Don't you have these questions? You should. And I'm not even mentioning the Lump of a "safety backup driver".


I already stated 2 issues lie with this accident. As you can see yes tha one's my point. I haven't debated the other point (because I normally don't debate stuff that I agree with.....). But my point is great than what you're talking about, because if we simply focus on simple strategy (looking before you cross roads) we don't have to worry about sensors detecting the pedestrian


----------



## LA_Native

Bart McCoy said:


> More important than why a pedestrian crossed the road illegally?
> MOre important than how the pedestrian didn't see a TRUCK with LIGHTS on coming?
> MOre important than why a pedestrian assumes they have the right to walk into oncoming traffic and expect to be saved by the vehicle they get in front of ? Really now?


Yes, of course. It's obvious what you're implying, but I have to admit, I'm surprised by the silliness of those questions.


----------



## Bart McCoy

LA_Native said:


> Yes, of course. It's obvious what you're implying, but I have to admit, I'm surprised by the silliness of those questions.


They aren't silly.
If the pedestrian paid attention to those simple questions, they would be alive today


----------



## LA_Native

Bart McCoy said:


> They aren't silly.
> If the pedestrian paid attention to those simple questions, they would be alive today


 Maybe you're right; they're amazingly moronic.


----------



## Bart McCoy

LA_Native said:


> Maybe you're right; they're amazingly moronic.


Moronic, yeah, that sounds about right when you cross the road at night not even attempting to look for oncoming traffic


----------



## LA_Native

Bart McCoy said:


> Moronic, yeah, that sounds about right when you cross the road at night not even attempting to look for oncoming traffic


No argument on that.


----------



## Jayjay9317

Uberdaddyo said:


> Uber suspended all of its self-driving testing Monday after what is believed to be the first fatal pedestrian crash involving the vehicles.
> 
> The testing has been going on for months in the Phoenix area, Pittsburgh, San Francisco and Toronto as automakers and technology companies compete to be the first with the technology.
> 
> -----
> 
> I'm glad hope they lose a ton of money because of this
> 
> http://www.wpxi.com/news/top-storie...iving-vehicle-service-in-pittsburgh/718237441


Is he chumlee?


----------



## iheartuber

Bart McCoy said:


> Good for you. Too bad the general public aren't professional NASCAR drivers or part-time Marvel superheros.


You don't need to be a NASCAR driver, just a driver with experience. How do you get experience? By driving a lot. Who drives a lot? The average Uber driver.

So, the average Uber (human) driver could have easily prevented this death.


----------



## Bart McCoy

iheartuber said:


> You don't need to be a NASCAR driver, just a driver with experience. How do you get experience? By driving a lot. Who drives a lot? The average Uber driver.
> 
> So, the average Uber (human) driver could have easily prevented this death.


so according to you, driving for Uber makes people great drivers? buhahahaaaaaaaaaaa


----------



## iheartuber

Bart McCoy said:


> so according to you, driving for Uber makes people great drivers? buhahahaaaaaaaaaaa


 Obviously not 100% of Uber drivers are great drivers but on average generally they are good drivers yes

If you notice I did say average


----------



## ntcindetroit

KenLV said:


> So? What's that got to do with, you know, the law...
> 
> https://uberpeople.net/threads/oper...destrian-was-felon.248494/page-8#post-3747768


The Police Officer specifically mentioned the bike/biker was crossing the Mill Ave. from West To East and not east to west. Actually, he slipped the tongue once and corrected it in the news briefing. Why is it important? There is no sign to warn or direct no crossing on foot from West to East bound traffic. More importantly, there is a big sign warning the drivers - [YIELD to BIKES]. Did Uber miss that one?


----------



## iheartuber

ntcindetroit said:


> The Police Officer specifically mentioned the bike/biker was crossing the Mill Ave. from West To East and not east to west. Actually, he slipped the tongue once and corrected it in the news briefing. Why is it important? There is no sign to warn or direct no crossing on foot from West to East bound traffic. More importantly, there is a big sign warning the drivers - [YIELD to BIKES]. Did Uber miss that one?


Fantastic question! How on earth do the sensors read signs like that? Or others for that matter (deer crossing, railroad, etc)

RamzFanz - wanna take a stab at it?


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

543 posts. I guess killer robots is a pretty contentious subject.


----------



## tohunt4me

Taxi2Uber said:


> So if you saw a person crossing the road outside of a crosswalk, you would not slow down and avoid hitting them?
> Instead you'll continue at your current rate, muttering "I have the right of way. Get ready for impact"


I think she would.
God help us all



TwoFiddyMile said:


> 543 posts. I guess killer robots is a pretty contentious subject.


Killer Robots wish to replace us all .



Bart McCoy said:


> Lets not combine issues.
> Lets stick to one issue: fault.
> Its real hard for you to admit that by law, no matter if you , I , an Uber car, truck, van , bicycler, or motorcycler hit the person, the pedestrian is CLEARLY at fault. C L E A R L Y
> 
> Why are people trying to bypass this original fault and lay it on Uber simply because they had a computer behind the wheel???????????
> 
> Anybody that doesn't admit the pedestrian is at fault, clearly simply has an obvious agenda out for Uber. So much it clogs their mind to be able to have clear thinking
> 
> Why are you harping on why Uber couldn't avoid hitting the pedestrian, instead of why in the world didn't the pedestrian avoid getting hit???????????? He could have done that easily by simply looking before crossing the street. If you see bright headlights, me thinks you shouldn't cross the road. If I'm the only one that thinks that, I'll happily be alone!!!!


Lets not combine AVOIDABLE DEATH. With the machines Right of Way.
Why should it brake
No cross walk.
Kill jay walkers.
Lets not combine issues.

Lets try to make Robotic monstrosity look like it DIDNT FAIL



ntcindetroit said:


> The Police Officer specifically mentioned the bike/biker was crossing the Mill Ave. from West To East and not east to west. Actually, he slipped the tongue once and corrected it in the news briefing. Why is it important? There is no sign to warn or direct no crossing on foot from West to East bound traffic. More importantly, there is a big sign warning the drivers - [YIELD to BIKES]. Did Uber miss that one?


Yield to Bikes ?
As in slow down not to run over ?

A sign ?
Not a line ?



JimKE said:


> Exactly.
> 
> *Energy = Mass (weight of the SDC) x speed SQUARED*.
> 
> So any reduction of speed would result in a much greater reduction in impact than most people think.
> 
> Cut the speed in half, from 38 to 19 mph, and you *reduce the impact to 1/4* what the victim suffered. Huge difference.
> 
> Based on the speed of the car (38 mph/ 55 feet per second) and average walking speed of 4-5 feet per second, I estimated that the victim was walking across the road for 7-9 seconds...maybe longer... before being struck.
> 
> Based on the speed of the car, when she stepped off the median and started across the roadway, the Uber SDC would have been about *383 feet* from her.
> 
> The Uber "driver" looked down at his/her phone for at least 5-5 1/2 seconds, looking up only in response to the crash itself.
> 
> *Stopping distance*, including reaction time and braking, at 38 mph *is about 110 feet*.
> 
> In the five seconds (bare minimum) that the driver was looking at his/her phone* -- the Uber SDC traveled about 275 feet...2.5X THE STOPPING DISTANCE!
> 
> If he/she had been paying attention, nobody would have been injured...much less killed.*


Avoidable Death.

IF SYSTEM HAD NOT MALFUNCTIONED !

If HUMAN DRIVER HAD DONE TBEIR JOB !

Utter NEGLIGENCE !


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

tohunt4me said:


> I think she would.
> God help us all
> 
> Killer Robots wish to replace us all .
> 
> Lets not combine AVOIDABLE DEATH. With the machines Right of Way.
> Why should it brake
> No cross walk.
> Kill jay walkers.
> Lets not combine issues.
> 
> Lets try to make Robotic monstrosity look like it DIDNT FAIL
> 
> Yield to Bikes ?
> As in slow down not to run over ?
> 
> A sign ?
> Not a line ?
> 
> Avoidable Death.
> 
> IF SYSTEM HAD NOT MALFUNCTIONED !
> 
> If HUMAN DRIVER HAD DONE TBEIR JOB !
> 
> Utter NEGLIGENCE !


Killer robots work for their makers. Their makers would have most of us starve so they can make extra $ billions.


----------



## tohunt4me

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Killer robots work for their makers. Their makers would have most of us starve so they can make extra $ billions.


I truely believe
They will eliminate US.



TwoFiddyMile said:


> Killer robots work for their makers. Their makers would have most of us starve so they can make extra $ billions.


United Nations said 2 years ago
More people should eat bugs.

So
Perhaps a lucky few 
Will be allowed to forrage on Govt. Farms to rid their crops of bugs.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

The U.N. should eat bugs.


----------



## tohunt4me

TwoFiddyMile said:


> The U.N. should eat bugs.


The Future World Government has " "SUSTAINABLE" plans for us.
After Eliminating personal Vehicle Ownership.
After Eliminating Personal Property Ownership.

I can see my future grandson
On trial
For " eating the Kings bugs".

Robin Hood all over again.



TwoFiddyMile said:


> The U.N. should eat bugs.


You and i have seen it in our lifetimes.
The steady erosion of personal wealth.
The continuous chipping away of rights.
The loss of freedom.
Globally.

It is a forced situation.

Not natural.

They STEAL our Lives
To Enrich Their own.
Vampires.
Of Life itself.

Each " tax" another bite upon my neck.


----------



## Bob fox

I wonder what would have happened if she was inside of the crosswalk

I wonder what happens when someone steps in front of a moving train. You see this is an interesting thing because the self-driving car didn't act much differently than a moving train. Nor is it much different than a driver who may have sneezed when someone was breaking the law stepping out into the middle of the road. I'm not a fan of self-driving cars but I do think this person simply should have used the crosswalk.


----------



## JimKE

Bob fox said:


> I wonder what would have happened if she was inside of the crosswalk
> 
> I wonder what happens when someone steps in front of a moving train. You see this is an interesting thing because the self-driving car didn't act much differently than a moving train. Nor is it much different than a driver who may have sneezed when someone was breaking the law stepping out into the middle of the road. I'm not a fan of self-driving cars but I do think this person simply should have used the crosswalk.


She was *crossing the roadway for 7-9 seconds* before she was struck by the Uber SDC.

*The Uber SDC was almost 400 feet away* when she first stepped off the median into the roadway. It was travelling at 38 MPH, and the stopping distance for 38 MPH is 110 feet, including reaction time.

The human "driver" was *staring at his/her phone for the final 5 - 5 1/2 seconds* immediately prior to impact.

*There was PLENTY of time and distance to avoid the death if ANY of the systems (autonomous or human) had been functioning properly.*

There is no reason to think that ANY of that would have changed just because of some lines painted on a roadway.


----------



## RamzFanz

iheartuber said:


> Fantastic question! How on earth do the sensors read signs like that? Or others for that matter (deer crossing, railroad, etc)
> 
> RamzFanz - wanna take a stab at it?


With cameras. There are endless examples out there, several that have been covered in videos I posted back when this was an interesting place to discuss SDCs before Jocker trashed this forum with his unending edited agenda posts.

At this point, posting the actual science, updates, and achievements is mostly a waste of my time.

How did you think they did it? Did you think they didn't/couldn't?


----------



## iheartuber

RamzFanz said:


> With cameras. There are endless examples out there, several that have been covered in videos I posted back when this was an interesting place to discuss SDCs before Jocker trashed this forum with his unending edited agenda posts.
> 
> At this point, posting the actual science, updates, and achievements is mostly a waste of my time.
> 
> How did you think they did it? Did you think they didn't/couldn't?


So if there is a "deer crossing" sign, robo cars can see that and know what that means? Sorry but I'm not convinced.


----------

