# Self Driving Car kills Woman



## PowerToThePeople

Self Driving Car kills a woman in Arizona. Condolences to the family and everyone involved....

Link is in the new york times or any outlet...

Drivers must profit while they can and the best way is to turn off your app and let it surge. Make money before autonomous cars replace you...


----------



## Pawtism

It appears she was jaywalking. Unfortunate, but not really a self driving car's fault. You jaywalk, you risk becoming a hood ornament. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2018/03/19/uber-self-driving-car-kills-arizona-woman/438473002/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/uber-driverless-fatality.html


----------



## Cableguynoe

Pawtism said:


> It appears she was jaywalking. Unfortunate, but not really a self driving car's fault. You jaywalk, you risk becoming a hood ornament.
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2018/03/19/uber-self-driving-car-kills-arizona-woman/438473002/
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/uber-driverless-fatality.html


I would have stopped for the nice lady crossing the street.

Now she's dead.


----------



## Pawtism

Cableguynoe said:


> I would have stopped for the nice lady crossing the street.
> 
> Now she's dead.


You would have tried to stop.  The car did have a safety driver, but he/she didn't see her either. People just walk right out into the street sometimes, usually because they're looking down at their phone, and they go splat. Happens here a lot unfortunately. Until they make walking and texting illegal, natural selection will have to rule.


----------



## Rakos

Sure...that was an out-of-band issue...

She was jaywalking...

Can't expect a computer...

To figure a human to do...

Something SO stupid..

Now tell me...

Was the computer at fault...

Or the designer...???

Rakos








PS. Maybe they should just let the monkey drive...8>)


----------



## 1974toyota

Pawtism said:


> It appears she was jaywalking. Unfortunate, but not really a self driving car's fault. You jaywalk, you risk becoming a hood ornament.
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2018/03/19/uber-self-driving-car-kills-arizona-woman/438473002/
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/uber-driverless-fatality.html


Not the cars fault? OK, I smell a serious $lawsuit $coming,jmo


----------



## Pawtism

1974toyota said:


> Not the cars fault? OK, I smell a serious $lawsuit $coming,jmo


Oh, someone will sue for sure (they always do), but yeah, not the cars fault. Pedestrians don't belong in the middle of the road, and if it happened so fast that even the sensors couldn't react to it in time, no human could have. She went splat because she wasn't paying attention.


----------



## IMMA DRIVER

What was the driver behind the wheel doing at the time? He's the one that should be questioned.
There were 3 chances to avoid this from happening. 1. by the pedestrian, 2. by the car, 3. by the driver behind the wheel. Uber will need to aggressively inform cities and states that test models are actively being used in their area. And I agree with Cableguynoe, 99% of Uber drivers would have stopped. This happens to us on a daily basis.


----------



## Pawtism

Uber drivers hit them in the crosswalks even.

http://abc7news.com/business/family-of-6-year-old-girl-killed-by-uber-driver-settles-lawsuit/852108/


----------



## Cableguynoe

IMMA DRIVER said:


> What was the driver behind the wheel doing at the time?


Reading my latest posts on UP.net


----------



## Pawtism

IMMA DRIVER said:


> What was the driver behind the wheel doing at the time? He's the one that should be questioned.
> There were 3 chances to avoid this from happening. 1. by the pedestrian, 2. by the car, 3. by the driver behind the wheel. Uber will need to aggressively inform cities and states that test models are actively being used in their area. And I agree with Cableguynoe, 99% of Uber drivers would have stopped. This happens to us on a daily basis.


I have to imagine they have a dash cam inside that car (for exactly reasons like this), so they'll be able to tell if the driver actually was paying attention, asleep, whatever, but if the forward facing radar (my car uses the same tech and it's quite good, definitely faster than I am) wasn't able to detect them in time, no human could have. Unless it's some really freaky thing, like they were all the way over in the number 1 lane and the person walked across 2 other lanes before getting hit or something (in which case, yeah, the driver should have noticed).


----------



## 1974toyota

Pawtism said:


> Oh, someone will sue for sure (they always do), but yeah, not the cars fault. Pedestrians don't belong in the middle of the road, and if it happened so fast that even the sensors couldn't react to it in time, no human could have. She went splat because she wasn't paying attention.


That Uber car had a Uber driver in the car at time of accident? Uber has suspended tests in 3 cities after that fatality,NY Times today,


----------



## Pawtism

Cableguynoe said:


> Reading my latest posts on UP.net


Probably 



1974toyota said:


> That Uber car had a Uber driver in the car at time of accident? Uber has suspended tests in 3 cities after that fatality,NY Times today,


Yeah there was a "safety driver" in the car, it was on automatic mode, but the driver was present too.

"Sgt. Ronald Elcock, a Tempe police spokesman, confirmed to the USA TODAY Network that the car was in autonomous mode with a driver behind the wheel when it hit the pedestrian. There were no passengers in the car at the time."


----------



## IMMA DRIVER

Pawtism said:


> if the forward facing radar (my car uses the same tech and it's quite good, definitely faster than I am) wasn't able to detect them in time, no human could have. Unless it's some really freaky think like they were all the way over in the number 1 lane and the person walked across 2 other lanes before getting hit or something (in which case, yeah, the driver should have noticed).


Not true at all. In most downtowns there are bus terminals everywhere with people crossing all the time. My eyes are now trained to see when someone is looking both ways or not, regardless of whether they dart out or not. Uber's technology is not trained to read human eyes......(well not until they read this post).


----------



## Pawtism

IMMA DRIVER said:


> Not true at all. In most downtowns there are bus terminals everywhere with people crossing all the time. My eyes are now trained to see when someone is looking both ways or not, regardless of whether they dart out or not. Uber's technology is not trained to read human eyes......(well not until they read this post).


If you foolishly step out in front of me when you shouldn't (obviously I watch for people at crosswalks), either I see you in time or I don't. If I see you in time, obviously I stop. If I don't, you go splat, how hard will depend on a variety of factors. So far the only person I've actually hit (I manage to miss most of them) only got a bit of road rash (as well as a broken phone and a jaywalking ticket haha).

With the way they keep watching their phones instead of where they are going, it's just a matter of time though. If I focused my time watching the eyes of people walking on sidewalks in between cross streets I'd be the one getting tickets for hitting other cars or something. My focus belongs on the road, not the sidewalks where there are no crosswalks.


----------



## 1974toyota

Cableguynoe said:


> Reading my latest posts on UP.net


Smoking a cigarette? watching Netflix? eating a bologna sandwich? not sure, they didn't tell us


----------



## Pawtism

So there is an update that apparently this happened about 10pm (Arizona time) last night.

Which means it was dark out and the driver likely never even saw the jaywalker.


----------



## MHR

She was riding a bike, not walking. Not that it really makes a difference.


----------



## Pawtism

MHR said:


> She was riding a bike, not walking. Not that it really makes a difference.


Ah, none of my reports mention the bike, they all say pedestrian crossing the street outside a crosswalk.


----------



## MHR

The screenshot of the video says bicyclist but the article says pedestrian. So dunno which is correct.


----------



## Cableguynoe

MHR said:


> She was riding a bike, not walking. Not that it really makes a difference.





Pawtism said:


> Ah, none of my reports mention the bike, they all say pedestrian crossing the street outside a crosswalk.


Too many conflicting reports. 
Now I'm hearing it was a possum.


----------



## 1974toyota

Pawtism said:


> Ah, none of my reports mention the bike, they all say pedestrian crossing the street outside a crosswalk.


yes thats what the NYT reported,jmo


----------



## Pawtism

MHR said:


> View attachment 215020
> 
> The screenshot of the video says bicyclist but the article says pedestrian. So dunno which is correct.


Maybe she was walking her bike across the street? That would explain why there is a bike in the picture, and also why everyone says pedestrian (at that point she would have been). What it doesn't explain is why she strolled out in front of a moving car. Alas, the world may never know.

Given that picture, it's pretty clear that the car was in the lane closest to the sidewalk, thus driver definitely had no warning. Self driving car was not at fault, any one of use could have hit her too.


----------



## 1974toyota

Pawtism said:


> Maybe she was walking her bike across the street? That would explain why there is a bike in the picture, and also why everyone says pedestrian (at that point she would have been). What it doesn't explain is why she strolled out in front of a moving car. Alas, the world may never know.
> 
> Given that picture, it's pretty clear that the car was in the lane closest to the sidewalk, thus driver definitely had no warning. Self driving car was not at fault, any one of use could have hit her too.


The Phoenix New Times, said the lady was walking out side the crosswalk,so who know,jmo


----------



## Cableguynoe

1974toyota said:


> The Phoenix New Times, said the lady was walking out side the crosswalk,so who know,jmo


Wait, did the Phoenix Times day that, or is it your opinion?


----------



## Pawtism

Cableguynoe said:


> Too many conflicting reports.
> Now I'm hearing it was a possum.


Maybe Noe's possum chased her out into the street? 

You know, I was joking, but I suppose something like that might have happened? People react irrationally to animals sometimes, and they tend to run without looking.


----------



## Pawtism

"You can expect that Uber, local regulators, and tech evangelists will make much of the Tempe police report that the woman was outside a crosswalk, although North Mill Avenue—the eight-lane road the victim was attempting to cross—has only one crosswalk in nearly two miles of road, making jaywalking a requirement of the urban design."

So there you go, she was definitely jaywalking (or crossing illegally on a bike) and evidently, didn't bother to look.


----------



## Pawtism

What do you bet that Tempe adds some crosswalks now?


----------



## Cableguynoe

Pawtism said:


> What do you bet that Tempe adds some crosswalks now?


Better yet, a pedestrian bridge.

Too soon?


----------



## Rakos

Cableguynoe said:


> Better yet, a pedestrian bridge.
> 
> Too soon?


OUCH...!!!

just remember...

It was FIGG engineering....

Insert approppo FIG joke here...8>O

Rakos


----------



## 1974toyota

Pawtism said:


> "You can expect that Uber, local regulators, and tech evangelists will make much of the Tempe police report that the woman was outside a crosswalk, although North Mill Avenue-the eight-lane road the victim was attempting to cross-has only one crosswalk in nearly two miles of road, making jaywalking a requirement of the urban design."
> 
> So there you go, she was definitely jaywalking (or crossing illegally on a bike) and evidently, didn't bother to look.


maybe they had a St pattys day parade there? JMO


----------



## 1974toyota

Cableguynoe said:


> Wait, did the Phoenix Times day that, or is it your opinion?


google USA today, they say the same thing, she was waling out side cross walk, Google REUTERS, they say same thing, Google FT in London same thing, this is a world wide story,across the globe, this is a Bayer aspirin day for Uber,JMO



Pawtism said:


> What do you bet that Tempe adds some crosswalks now?


Reuters says a local TV station showed a crumpled bike at scene,they said she was walking outside cross walk,Uber car was a Volvo XC90 SUV, Tempe is 11 miles from Phoenix,lady was 49 YO,name Elaine Herzberg, she later died at hospital of injuries, The Volvo had a smashed front from accident,according to Reuters,JMO


----------



## Pawtism

Well, Uber deactivated the program same as they deactivate one of us anytime there is anything out of place (even if it's false). In this case they'll do an investigation, and once it shows that it was the jaywalker's fault (and you can bet they'll point the finger at the city for the lack of crosswalks for the impending suit that's coming), they'll reactivate it. It's not just us they do it to, it's themselves too hehe.

Although, I do wonder what their software does with crosswalks. I hadn't really considered that. Obviously it reads the markings on the road as a crosswalk, but does it recognize that someone is about to step out? I'd be interested to know.


----------



## Rakos

Do you think the botcar...

Will submit for a cleaning fee...8>O

Rakos


----------



## Pawtism

Rakos said:


> Do you think the botcar...
> 
> Will submit for a cleaning fee...8>O
> 
> Rakos
> View attachment 215060


That's what I don't understand about Uber's driver-less car plan. Can the cars be programed to drive better than humans even? Yeah, I think they can, eventually. That's not the part of the plan that concerns me. Who's going to clean up the puke, or other bio stuff (we know how often the pax try to make out) and other dirt related stuff. Who's going to ensure kids are in car seats, buckled up, 10 people aren't overloading, etc? I don't think uber has really thought this through.


----------



## MHR

UberBeamer said:


> There's all that and think about when you were a kid... mailbox bashing is so last year...SDC bashing is on.


I'll try to find the article I read about people beating up the SDC's.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/angry-people-beating-self-driving-170000011.html


----------



## Pawtism

UberBeamer said:


> There's all that and think about when you were a kid... mailbox bashing is so last year...SDC bashing is on.


Right, that's not even taking into account the hordes of ex drivers who are spiteful about it and intentionally vandalizing.


----------



## Ana C.

Rakos said:


> Sure...that was an out-of-band issue...
> 
> She was jaywalking...
> 
> Can't expect a computer...
> 
> To figure a human to do...
> 
> Something SO stupid..
> 
> Now tell me...
> 
> Was the computer at fault...
> 
> Or the designer...???
> 
> Rakos
> View attachment 214984
> 
> PS. Maybe they should just let the monkey drive...8>)


heeeyyy, you ran out of apes?


----------



## RedSteel

Cableguynoe said:


> Better yet, a pedestrian bridge.
> 
> Too soon?


You know......its simply not shocking you went there

If I was asked who on this forum would make that comment I would only have needed one guess


----------



## Taxi2Uber

Crossing outside of a crosswalk is not automatically illegal. If the distance to the nearest crosswalk is greater than ? feet (I forget the number), than you can cross from corner to corner.


"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."

Autonomous cars will only really work if they ban human drivers and have dedicated and isolated lanes for the cars to travel.


----------



## RedSteel

I have to admit I have all kinds of issues with self driving cars...

I could go on a major rant and at 51 y/o I am truly hoping I am long dead before they really take hold

I know this seems like a "Get Off My Lawn" thing but no way i would trust those things and the v unbelievable damage they will do to the economy is mind boggling

I can't believe more people don't see these things for what they are.... they won't make people's lives better.... they just will fatten the bank accounts of billion dollar companies.


----------



## Pawtism

I guess I see it as part of a long evolving cycle. The craftsmen lost their jobs to the machines, but that created factory worker jobs.. the supermarket checkers are losing their jobs to the self checkout lanes, but the installers and techs are gaining jobs.. drivers will lose their jobs to the automated cars, but the techs for the cars, engineers for both the cars and the city infrastructures are gaining jobs. Bottom line, it will just be more improvement over all. But those with no skills need to either get some skills, or an education, or something, because they're the ones who are going to be left behind. All is not lost though, someone will still need to clean the vomit out of the automated cars.


----------



## Cableguynoe

RedSteel said:


> You know......its simply not shocking you went there
> 
> If I was asked who on this forum would make that comment I would only have needed one guess


I'm not one who likes surprises. 
So I try to stay consistent so you guys know what to expect.


----------



## thepeach

in Chicago, lots of pedestrians cross the street in the cross walk at the last second, also some pedestrians cross the street at an angle and not in the cross walk, plus there are bike lanes and the bikes are something ride share drivers have to watch for very carefully, not to mention our wonderful Lake Shore Drive which have curves in it and a lot of pot holes that could cause a driverless car to zoom into other lanes and don't forget the cabs that zoom from a left lane and swing to the right and then race in front of you near stop lights and they drive through the green light and other cars have to wait for the stop light to turn green again----so a driverless car might clunk into the taxi's


----------



## nomad_driver

Cableguynoe said:


> Too many conflicting reports.
> Now I'm hearing it was a possum.


uber will be in some serious trouble if PETA gets involved.


----------



## Rakos

Ana C. said:


> heeeyyy, you ran out of apes?


Nope... here's one for you...8>)

Rakos








PS. Check out that box...first ape...8>)


----------



## Taxi2Uber

Glad to see this story is also a top story on international news.
Just saw it on NHK from Japan as one of the lead stories.
It was reported that the crash was caused by the Uber self driving car. Love it.

Hopefully the State of AZ will be implicated in the lawsuit.

"_Much of the testing of autonomous cars has taken place in a piecemeal regulatory environment. Some states, like Arizona, have taken a lenient approach to regulation. Arizona officials wanted to lure companies working on self-driving technology out of neighboring California, where regulators had been less receptive."
_
Thanks AZ. I guess the State of AZ cares very little of its citizen's and visitors, to use them as human crash test dummy guinea pigs.
Putting lives in danger because they're jealous of CA?
Hell, we're talking about a state where there is NO statewide ban on texting and driving yet!


----------



## Surgeio

Pawtism said:


> Until they make walking and texting illegal, natural selection will have to rule.


In Honolulu it is illegal to look at your phone while crossing the street. Violators are subject to a whopping $25 fine.


----------



## Pawtism

Surgeio said:


> In Honolulu it is illegal to look at your phone while crossing the street. Violators are subject to a whopping $25 fine.


Or death, depending if the cop or the car catches you.

Texting and walking (and driving).. one of the few offenses that is either a relatively minor fine, or the death penalty.


----------



## Oscar Levant

PowerToThePeople said:


> Self Driving Car kills a woman in Arizona. Condolences to the family and everyone involved....
> 
> Link is in the new york times or any outlet...
> 
> If you drivers would stop accepting every request, TURN OFF YOUR APP AND WAIT FOR A SURGE- EVERYONE WOULD MAKE MORE MONEY- its simple. The more you follow Uber/Lyft's program, the more control they have.
> 
> It's so simple to literally get whatever the drivers want if drivers would act as a team, but that won't happen. Drivers are way too desperate- This is America


It wont happen. The vast majority of drivers don't even know UP exists.


----------



## MHR

https://www.iheart.com/content/2018-03-19-police-self-driving-suv-going-40-mph-when-woman-hit/

Bit of an update. It now says she was walking her bike across the street and the SDC was going about 40 mph.


----------



## Pawtism

Pawtism for the win (that was my guess after I saw your bike pic). 

at 40, she steps right in front, no human or computer can stop that fast. Who knows what was going through her mind, but stepping in front of moving cars usually doesn't end well (especially at night).


----------



## nomad_driver

Pawtism said:


> Pawtism for the win (that was my guess after I saw your bike pic).
> 
> at 40, she steps right in front, no human or computer can stop that fast. Who knows what was going through her mind, but stepping in front of moving cars usually doesn't end well (especially at night).


Stopping isn't the only way to avoid a collision. Depending on the situation swerving could have saved the day.


----------



## MHR

Maybe they were training the AI to decide if a 40-something female life is worth swerving to avoid killing.

It has been said that AI will have to decide who lives and who dies in certain collision scenarios.


----------



## Rakos

MHR said:


> Maybe they were training the AI to decide if a 40-something female life is worth swerving to avoid killing.
> 
> It has been said that AI will have to decide who lives and who dies in certain collision scenarios.


Wasn't 40 the age that is the max....

After that we are just water and dirt...8>O

Rakos


----------



## UberBastid

People pay exclusive attention to their phones. Some never look up.
I pulled up to the curb once; gal looking into her phone. She looked, and looked. My clock ran. She looked up once, and scanned RIGHT above me to look a block away. 
Tick, tick.
She stood there and stared into her phone for five minutes and I cancelled. She looked confused, and looked arround some more.
Finally, she looked at the trade dress in the front window. (Seriously, I was no more than ten feet away from her). She tried the door, locked. I rolled the window down and explained that I am not in the phone. I am out here. I am a real person, with a real car. I am not a game that resides in her phone.
She re-ordered and a driver was on the way, five minutes out. 
She said, "Why can't I go with you."
"Sorry" says I, "you had your shot at me. Now you get second best. And, you really don't want to miss that one. I hear there's some monkey out here driving..."
I suggested that she put the phone in her purse, and watch for A CAR. A real car. With a description, and license plate, etc.


----------



## Rakos

*"you really don't want to miss that one. I hear there's some monkey out here driving"*

Priceless response....8>)

Rakos


----------



## Pawtism

nomad_driver said:


> Stopping isn't the only way to avoid a collision. Depending on the situation swerving could have saved the day.


Swerving is almost always a bad idea. You're driving along, crazy person steps in front of your car and goes splat (legally and morally their fault). You're driving along, some crazy person steps in front of your car, you swerve, hit the car next to you, knock them into a telephone pole, that driver goes splat (legally and possibly morally your fault). You can't possibly have enough time to check the lane next to you and swerve if it's clear. If you have that much time, you have time to stop anyway.

AIs would not (and should not) be programed to swerve (imagine how much havoc someone would bring if they were). Someone steps in front of uber car, it swerves and takes out the car next to it.. haha uber has to buy them a new car.. oh.. they died? oops, now they're a murderer. They won't (and shouldn't) program the cars to swerve (and neither should drivers). Someone steps in front of me, either I have time to stop or they go splat.


----------



## afsmart

My prayers and condolences to the Arizona woman's family. What a tragic accident. We will look at this from so many angles but let's not forget the person who lost their life.


----------



## Rakos

My condolences...butt...

Has anyone looked at her pic....

We have lots of those....

Rapidly accelerated individuals here...

And on more than one occasion...

I Have had to evade someone...

That was a bit jacked up...

Not accusing...butt...

Been there...done that...

So far...never hit any...8>)

Rakos








PS. That's one robocar slightly tarnished butt...nonetheless famous...8>O


----------



## Taxi2Uber

Cars don't kill people, people do....oh wait.

Ban all assault type SDC-15's!

We need sensible SDC control!


----------



## UberBastid

Pawtism said:


> Swerving is almost always a bad idea. You're driving along, crazy person steps in front of your car and goes splat (legally and morally their fault). You're driving along, some crazy person steps in front of your car, you swerve, hit the car next to you, knock them into a telephone pole, that driver goes splat (legally and possibly morally your fault). You can't possibly have enough time to check the lane next to you and swerve if it's clear. If you have that much time, you have time to stop anyway.
> 
> AIs would not (and should not) be programed to swerve (imagine how much havoc someone would bring if they were). Someone steps in front of uber car, it swerves and


I usually don't have to check to see if someone is next to me. I check all mirrors constantly. And I almost always know if the lane on either side of me is empty or not. Without looking I can make a Quick Lane change to avoid an obstruction. And I have many times.


----------



## Pawtism

UberBeamer said:


> It's a computer. I'd imagine the determination whether to swerve would have to take all those factors into account. Is there enough time and space to swerve around the obstacle? Are there any other cars or other obstacles to avoid? One thing is for sure that with multiple cameras seeing 360 degrees it could potentially make all those calculations and react a lot quicker and more accurately than a human driver.
> 
> Then there's some of the situations the media has brought up before. Say the car is definitely going to hit one or more other vehicles or people. Now it's simply trying to minimize damage. Which one(s) to choose?
> 
> And what about pothole avoidance? Will they just drive through all potholes? So many questions.


Well, I can see the argument that the computer would be able to monitor it's side and know, much, much faster than a human if it's safe to swerve or not. Good point. 

If I were advising the programmers, I'd tell them not to look at minimizing damage, I'd tell them to look at the legality of it. If your choices are hit the pedestrian or swerve and hit the car next to you, I'd say hit the pedestrian. The reasoning is simple. A pedestrian in the roadway when they shouldn't be is the pedestrian's fault (thus no legal liability for the company operating it). Obviously try to stop and minimize damage to the pedestrian, but don't swerve (if there is a car next to you).

If you do program it to swerve instead (to save the pedestrian), anything that happens to that car next to you (and everyone in it) will be 100% the liability of the company operating the car (and possibly even going back to the programmers). God help you if someone in that other car dies. Simply put, from a legal perspective, it's better to take out the pedestrian (as it's their own fault).

I do like the that the AI could decide that, if it's clear, it's safe to swerve.



UberBastid said:


> I usually don't have to check to see if someone is next to me. I check all mirrors constantly. And I almost always know if the lane on either side of me is empty or not. Without looking I can make a Quick Lane change to avoid an obstruction. And I have many times.


Well if you happen to know it's clear, and have time to swerve, then sure, that's the best plan.


----------



## Rakos

Update....

Woman was homeless....

She was previously arrested...

And convicted of drug possession...8>O

Family says she had problems...

Info provided and referenced from...

Azcentral.com....website...

Still no justification for death...8>(

Looks like we got a ways to go...

Drivers...start your engines...

The cost to Uber just went up for us...8>)

We drivers wouldn't do that...really...

Rakos


----------



## Pawtism

Rakos said:


> Update....
> 
> Woman was homeless....
> 
> She was previously arrested...
> 
> And convicted of drug possession...8>O
> 
> Family says she had problems...
> 
> Info provided and referenced from...
> 
> Azcentral.com....website...
> 
> Still no justification for death...8>(
> 
> Looks like we got a ways to go...
> 
> Drivers...start your engines...
> 
> The cost to Uber just went up for us...8>)
> 
> We drivers wouldn't do that...really...
> 
> Rakos
> View attachment 215433


So maybe she was on something, that would explain stepping in front of a vehicle going 40mph giving it no time to react.


----------



## RynoHawk

Rakos said:


> Update....
> 
> Woman was homeless....
> 
> She was previously arrested...
> 
> And convicted of drug possession...8>O
> 
> Family says she had problems...
> 
> Info provided and referenced from...
> 
> Azcentral.com....website...
> 
> Still no justification for death...8>(
> 
> Looks like we got a ways to go...
> 
> Drivers...start your engines...
> 
> The cost to Uber just went up for us...8>)
> 
> We drivers wouldn't do that...really...
> 
> Rakos
> View attachment 215433


Probably wont stop her family, who possibly had already erased her from their lives, from suing Uber, the "safety driver", the State and governor of Arizona, the city, etc.


----------



## UberLaLa

IMMA DRIVER said:


> Not true at all. In most downtowns there are bus terminals everywhere with people crossing all the time. My eyes are now trained to see when someone is looking both ways or not, regardless of whether they dart out or not. Uber's technology is not trained to read human eyes......(well not until they read this post).


There is something to this, as well humans can read the slight movement (head, hands, eyes) of other drivers around them. And, avert potential accidents. I believe overall, SDC's can react quicker and have 360 'vision' around the car, but SDC's can not read the subtle indicators other drivers and pedestrians make, before they do something stupid.

Just the same, I'm going to guess this accident might have still occurred even with a fully aware driver, not in an SDC.


----------



## UberBastid

I saw a segment on .... wanna say 60 minutes about a week ago? Was it 60 Minutes? Can't remember, but, it was about a trucking company in Arizona (why is it always Arizona?) who has an operation where a human takes a semi-trailer to a terminal about 200 yards from a freeway on-ramp where a robot takes the load down the highway to a terminal within 200 yards from a freeway off-ramp some hundreds of miles away. Then a human picks it up at the terminal and takes it to the warehouse its supposed to go to.
Now, THAT system I can see being usable right now.


----------



## Taxi2Uber

never mind I found it


----------



## iheartuber

Pawtism said:


> That's what I don't understand about Uber's driver-less car plan. Can the cars be programed to drive better than humans even? Yeah, I think they can, eventually. That's not the part of the plan that concerns me. Who's going to clean up the puke, or other bio stuff (we know how often the pax try to make out) and other dirt related stuff. Who's going to ensure kids are in car seats, buckled up, 10 people aren't overloading, etc? I don't think uber has really thought this through.


I said the same things and people called me crazy.

Of course when I say "people" I mean one guy who's in the pocket of real
Estate developers who want to see car ownership vanish so that they don't have to Install parking lots in their high rises.


----------



## Pawtism

UberLaLa said:


> There is something to this, as well humans can read the slight movement (head, hands, eyes) of other drivers around them. And, avert potential accidents. I believe overall, SDC's can react quicker and have 360 'vision' around the car, but SDC's can not read the subtle indicators other drivers and pedestrians make, before they do something stupid.
> 
> Just the same, I'm going to guess this accident might have still occurred even with a fully aware driver, not in an SDC.


Well, either humans are going to have to learn to actually obey the traffic laws, or more humans are going to die. It's sad, but it's true. One day, in the future, all cars will be automated and things will flow much smoother. Until that day, humans need to start following the laws.


----------



## MHR

They've released the video.

http://www.kens5.com/mobile/article...up-to-fatal-uber-self-driving-crash/530771934

Doesn't look like she just appeared out of nowhere. But perception is not always reality.


----------



## heynow321

She didn’t jump out at all. She was crossing from the left to the right. The car should have been able to see her long before hitting her if these things are actually capable of what the nerds try to claim they are. Also notice how distracted the so-called safety driver was. His eyes were not on the road


----------



## MHR

heynow321 said:


> She didn't jump out at all. She was crossing from the left to the right. The car should have been able to see her long before hitting her if these things are actually capable of what the nerds try to claim they are. Also notice how distracted the so-called safety driver was. His eyes were not on the road


The driver is a her. An unattractive her but still. Yes, SHE wasn't paying a lick of attention. Too busy looking at a screen (?) that was not in her line of sight.

Granted the woman was not at a crosswalk but it's not like she popped out from in between 2 cars or anything.

There wasn't even any traffic on the road.


----------



## heynow321

That’s a woman....yikes


----------



## Taxi2Uber

Yup, "safety driver" acting more like a passenger busy playing Candy Crush. Just like the crash in Pittsburgh where a SDC crash into a turning car. "Safety Driver" didn't notice a car turning, and whether or not turn signals were used by the other driver and the SDC he was "operating".

Enough with the "she was not in a crosswalk" argument. Its perfectly legal to cross a street in AZ without a crosswalk. Especially in that particular area. This isn't Big City. There's even walkways in the median between the two one-way streets and a common place for pedestrians to cross.
Certainly poor judgement on the victim's part to assume the driver will see, and slow down, but blame must also be put on the SDC not recognizing the unfolding event and the "safety driver" not paying attention at all.


----------



## Rakos

They need flashing yellow lights...

So everyone knows it's a robocar...

That was just ridiculous...!!!

Epic FAIL Uber...!

Rakos


----------



## Pawtism

Well, I actually timed the video from the time i saw her (forward view, knowing it was about to happen, watching for her, which isn't even a realistic situation), took out 200ms for human reaction time, and at 40 mph, no way I could have stopped, I'd have slowed to maybe 30 (assuming anti lock brakes) before impact. A driver who was paying attention, but didn't have the foreknowledge that it was about to happen would have probably gotten to 35. No human could have avoided this.

Yes, the safety driver deserves to be canned. Not because of the accident, but because she was clearly not paying the attention she should have been, and what if the car did start going rogue? However, this accident is 100% the fault of the pedestrian. Arizona, like most states, has a law that says "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." Yield right of way to vehicles means, you have to get out of their way, not the other way around. It also means that if there is an accident... pedestrians fault, automatically (the pedestrian was where they weren't supposed to be). Evidently pedestrians not yielding right of way to vehicles is a pass time in AZ. Arizona is in the top 3 both for overall pedestrian deaths and for pedestrian deaths outside a crosswalk.

This was neither a marked, nor an unmarked crosswalk, thus, she was required to yield right of way, and failed to do so. Again, 100% her fault. Now, that being said, Uber needs to tweak it's software. While a human could not have seen this fast enough, now that I've seen which side she was coming from (I'd been thinking she was crossing the other way), I'm convinced the automated car probably should have seen her (or at least seen her sooner and should have started the braking process and not hit her so fast). They've probably never had to consider "rogue elements" like people crazy enough to walk in front of a car before. They'll have to now.


----------



## Taxi2Uber

2-3 seconds to react and that's based on a fixed forward facing camera. Add seconds with peripheral vision and this death was avoidable.


----------



## Pawtism

Taxi2Uber said:


> 2-3 seconds to react and that's based on a fixed forward facing camera. Add seconds with peripheral vision and this death was avoidable.


1.7 seconds from the time you can first see her (assuming you know it's coming and are waiting for it) to the time of impact. She was directly in front by the time the lights illuminated her enough, so peripheral vision is irrelevant. Car moving at 40mph, taking out reaction time (realizing what was happening, and moving foot to brake), even with forewarning, you're down to 1.5 seconds.. do the math, you show me how you get a car from 40 to 0 in 1.5 seconds (I did, and it can't). Shave another .5 of a second for a driver just driving with no foreknowledge (and not actively looking as hard as they can waiting for it), and tell me what the car speed would be at 1 second exactly (again, I've done this math). Again, I'd have gotten down to about 30 mph (with my foreknowledge) and any other driver would have gotten to about 35.

No human could have prevented this accident.

Actually I take that back.. ONE human could have prevented this accident.. and she's dead..


----------



## Taxi2Uber

Pawtism said:


> 1.7 seconds from the time you can first see her (assuming you know it's coming and are waiting for it) to the time of impact. She was directly in front by the time the lights illuminated her enough, so peripheral vision is irrelevant. Car moving at 40mph, taking out reaction time (realizing what was happening, and moving foot to brake), even with forewarning, you're down to 1.5 seconds.. do the math, you show me how you get a car from 40 to 0 in 1.5 seconds (I did, and it can't). Shave another .5 of a second for a driver just driving with no foreknowledge (and not actively looking as hard as they can waiting for it), and tell me what the car speed would be at 1 second exactly (again, I've done this math). Again, I'd have gotten down to about 30 mph (with my foreknowledge) and any other driver would have gotten to about 35.
> 
> No human could have prevented this accident.
> 
> Actually I take that back.. ONE human could have prevented this accident.. and she's dead..


Take away your favorable bias toward SDC and it would make more sense. 2 seconds to swerve left into other lane and death avoided.


----------



## Pawtism

Taxi2Uber said:


> Take away your favorable bias toward SDC and it would make more sense. 2 seconds to swerve left into other lane and death avoided.


Well, aside from my SDC bias (as you put it, I'm more "not biased against them" but ok), I'm also strongly opposed (baised even) to liability, so swerving is something I'm against (if you swerve and hit a car next to you, everything becomes your fault instead of the jaywalkers).. I will admit though, I haven't checked if 1.5 seconds (1.0 realistically) is enough time to check mirror and if safe, swerve.. maybe? at the least, perhaps she would have just clipped her instead? If I get a minute to run those numbers, I will.


----------



## tohunt4me

R


Cableguynoe said:


> I would have stopped for the nice lady crossing the street.
> 
> Now she's dead.


Robo Car MONSTERS 
HAVE NO SOUL !



Pawtism said:


> Probably
> 
> Yeah there was a "safety driver" in the car, it was on automatic mode, but the driver was present too.
> 
> "Sgt. Ronald Elcock, a Tempe police spokesman, confirmed to the USA TODAY Network that the car was in autonomous mode with a driver behind the wheel when it hit the pedestrian. There were no passengers in the car at the time."


The City is Liable.
Testing should have never been allowed to Terrorize the Citizens !



MHR said:


> View attachment 215020
> 
> The screenshot of the video says bicyclist but the article says pedestrian. So dunno which is correct.


She was Legally Walking the bicycle across the road which extends the rights of Pedestrian to her actions.

Arizona Law is specific about the difference in rights and right of way from Walking a bike verses riding a bike.


----------



## Pawtism

So, at 40mph, the time it would take to check mirrors and swerve, at 1.5 seconds, you'd probably clip them.. It's really hard to say if you actually hit them or not, it's inside the standard deviation, but it's on the "hit them" side. Likely you would, but it's possible you might miss (out of pure luck and because she was moving still, assuming she didn't freeze, it's hard to see it the picture so I've assumed she kept walking). At the more realistic 1.0 seconds (because 1.5 was with me knowing it was coming and actively watching for it), she still gets hit, even with swerve.



tohunt4me said:


> Arizona Law is specific about the difference in rights and right of way from Walking a bike verses riding a bike.


She was a pedestrian, but she was also jaywalking, AZ law is very clear on walking outside of a crosswalk (I posted the law above).

Thus, she was at fault (she failed to yield right of way).


----------



## tohunt4me

Cableguynoe said:


> Better yet, a pedestrian bridge.
> 
> Too soon?


Uber should BUILD THEM SEVERAL

IN ATONEMENT .

The chief says he wants VOLVO police cars too . . .



UberBeamer said:


> Those stories seem tame.
> 
> I'm thinking a full out beat down breaking all the windows, lights and denting all the panels will not be all that uncommon.
> 
> Or just laying out nail strips to puncture the tires.


Tire pressure sensor explosive strips . .



Pawtism said:


> So, at 40mph, the time it would take to check mirrors and swerve, at 1.5 seconds, you'd probably clip them.. It's really hard to say if you actually hit them or not, it's inside the standard deviation, but it's on the "hit them" side. Likely you would, but it's possible you might miss (out of pure luck and because she was moving still, assuming she didn't freeze, it's hard to see it the picture so I've assumed she kept walking). At the more realistic 1.0 seconds (because 1.5 was with me knowing it was coming and actively watching for it), she still gets hit, even with swerve.
> 
> She was a pedestrian, but she was also jaywalking, AZ law is very clear on walking outside of a crosswalk (I posted the law above).
> 
> Thus, she was at fault (she failed to yield right of way).


And 40 mph was speeding.

If the Volvo were doing speed limit
She would be alive.
Not nailed by 2 feet of the Volvo fender.

At the Proper speed limit.
The Volvo would have never touched her.

The Volvo never even slowed.


----------



## Taxi2Uber

Pawtism said:


> Well, aside from my SDC bias (as you put it, I'm more "not biased against them" but ok), I'm also strongly opposed (baised even) to liability, so swerving is something I'm against (if you swerve and hit a car next to you, everything becomes your fault instead of the jaywalkers).. I will admit though, I haven't checked if 1.5 seconds (1.0 realistically) is enough time to check mirror and if safe, swerve.. maybe? at the least, perhaps she would have just clipped her instead? If I get a minute to run those numbers, I will.


You don't have to run the numbers. A good driver would already know if a car is in the other lane. You give yourself "an out". Its called defensive driving. In this case, you just react and swerve left, fully knowing its clear.


----------



## Pawtism

tohunt4me said:


> Uber should BUILD THEM SEVERAL
> 
> IN ATONEMENT .
> 
> The chief says he wants VOLVO police cars too . . .
> 
> Tire pressure sensor explosive strips . .
> 
> And 40 mph was speeding.
> 
> If the Volvo were doing speed limit
> She would be alive.
> Not nailed by 2 feet of the Volvo fender.
> 
> At the Proper speed limit.
> The Volvo would have never touched her.
> 
> The Volvo never even slowed.


Went and checked, speed limit was 45, they were only doing 40. Not speeding.



Taxi2Uber said:


> You don't have to run the numbers. A good driver would already know if a car is in the other lane. You give yourself "an out". Its called defensive driving. In this case, you just react and swerve left, fully knowing its clear.


I have video after video of drivers that thought they knew what was in the next lane and swerved when they were sure it was clear (and they creamed another car). There are actually compilations on YouTube too. Thinking you know it's clear and not checking is how lawyers get pay checks.


----------



## Taxi2Uber

Pawtism said:


> Well, aside from my SDC bias (as you put it, I'm more "not biased against them" but ok), I'm also strongly opposed (baised even) to liability, *so swerving is something I'm against (if you swerve and hit a car next to you, everything becomes your fault instead of the jaywalkers)..* I will admit though, I haven't checked if 1.5 seconds (1.0 realistically) is enough time to check mirror and if safe, swerve.. maybe? at the least, perhaps she would have just clipped her instead? If I get a minute to run those numbers, I will.


In the US, "_Drivers are always required to take reasonable steps to avoid an accident*"
"*In other words, if someone suddenly swerves into your lane and you react to avoid them, which in turn causes an accident, most of the time, the person who swerves is partially if not completely responsible. Whether you would be responsible depends entirely on how you reacted and the reasonableness of that reaction. If your response was unreasonable, if you overreacted to what the person did, then you may be completely responsible for the accident or you may be partially responsible for the accident."
_
I would say, swerving to avoid killing someone would be reasonable, if in fact you were not prepared and hit a car next to you. Admitting that you would rather just hit a pedestrian, instead of trying to avoid her, is, well, disappointing.


----------



## tohunt4me

Taxi2Uber said:


> In the US, "_Drivers are always required to take reasonable steps to avoid an accident*"
> "*In other words, if someone suddenly swerves into your lane and you react to avoid them, which in turn causes an accident, most of the time, the person who swerves is partially if not completely responsible. Whether you would be responsible depends entirely on how you reacted and the reasonableness of that reaction. If your response was unreasonable, if you overreacted to what the person did, then you may be completely responsible for the accident or you may be partially responsible for the accident."
> _
> I would say, swerving to avoid killing someone would be reasonable, if in fact you were not prepared and hit a car next to you. Admitting that you would rather just hit a pedestrian, instead of trying to avoid her, is, well, disappointing.


Well within the scope of anticipated avoidance measures.
Quite reasonable to expect.

The Volvo NEVER SLOWED !

Only 2 feet of fender KILLED THAT WOMAN.

A SINGLE BRAKE TAP .. .WOULD HAVE GIVEN LIFE !


----------



## Taxi2Uber

tohunt4me said:


> Well within the scope of anticipated avoidance measures.
> Quite reasonable to expect.
> 
> The Volvo NEVER SLOWED !
> 
> Only 2 feet of fender KILLED THAT WOMAN.
> 
> A SINGLE BRAKE TAP .. .WOULD HAVE GIVEN LIFE !


That's a good point. Pawtism theories require a 40 mph to 0 scenario. But the pedestrian was moving, not stationary in the middle of the lane. Even some slow down from the SDC probably would have saved her life. Add a quick swerve to left, and the SDC might have just hit the back wheel of the bike or missed entirely.


----------



## Pawtism

Taxi2Uber said:


> In the US, "_Drivers are always required to take reasonable steps to avoid an accident*"
> "*In other words, if someone suddenly swerves into your lane and you react to avoid them, which in turn causes an accident, most of the time, the person who swerves is partially if not completely responsible. Whether you would be responsible depends entirely on how you reacted and the reasonableness of that reaction. If your response was unreasonable, if you overreacted to what the person did, then you may be completely responsible for the accident or you may be partially responsible for the accident."
> _
> I would say, swerving to avoid killing someone would be reasonable, if in fact you were not prepared and hit a car next to you. Admitting that you would rather just hit a pedestrian, instead of trying to avoid her, is, well, disappointing.


If you think the pedestrian who causes the accident is going to stick around to take responsibility, I have a stack of case law you need to read on the subject. They almost never stick around (and a homeless pedestrian is even less likely to stick around). Even if she did, that bike is probably the only thing she owned (being homeless), good luck getting a cent out of her, guess who they're coming after next? You're living in a fantasy world where everything is always right and no one ever deviates from the right thing. In the real world, you swerve to avoid the crazy homeless person, you hit a car next to you, and cripple the passenger in that car, homeless person runs and is never seen again, you get sued and wind up homeless yourself (slight exaggeration on actually winding up homeless). In reality your insurance rates simply skyrocket, and you have to declare bankruptcy and sell your house to settle the suit. The world is not this pretty happy place you seem to think it is.

Bottom line, you swerve to miss a pedestrian (or any other road hazard) and hit another car, you are 50% at fault, the pedestrian is 50% at fault. You hit pedestrian, pedestrian is 100% at fault. It's the same if you swerve to avoid, say a car who is about to hit you from another lane. If you let them hit you, they are 100% at fault, and if you swerve and hit another car, you are 50% at fault and the one who almost hit you is 50% at fault (this is all assuming the pedestrian was in the wrong to begin with). It's the way the world works. Is it sad? Yes, I'd say so, but it's also now liability works. You should really do some research on the real world, and not just theory.

I was lucky, even before I started studying law, I was taught (one of the people who help teach me to drive happened to be a lawyer, and may have actually been my inspiration to study law) to only swerve if safe to do so. That it was better to actually get into the accident (if it wasn't your fault) than it was to swerve and cause one (that was your fault). Of course you should brake (if someone rear ends you, it's their fault for following too close), but you do NOT swerve. Later I got my CDL (Commercial Driver's License) and drove trucks for triple C (Crete Carrier Corp). While I was getting my CDL, that training was reinforced (and is starting to become standard training for commercial drivers btw. Prior to this, training they went with your "the world is a pretty, happy place" theory. "This was not a part of the training plan offered by my employer. As most managerial staff truly believe that road and driving conditions are Utopia, and a Commercial Vehicle Drivers were able to pre plan for EVERY situation." - Brenden Sinclair, Commercial Driver Trainer (see article below). So, next time someone thinks it's funny to get in front of a rig and slam on their brakes, they should be warned that the drivers are starting to be trained to try to brake but just hit them and let their dash cam be evidence). More and more driving schools are starting to train young drivers this way as well, and liability is the reason.

Here in my market, far too many pedestrians are constantly getting hit. It's because they foolishly (and incorrectly) believe that cars have to stop for them. If they are in a crosswalk (and not crossing against a light), they'd be correct, otherwise they are simply wrong. At some point the pedestrians need to take some personal responsibility and either cross at the crosswalk, or if you're going to jaywalk (I'll admit, I've done it, when I was more mobile) hustle your butt across, and make sure you aren't in a car's way. While I did do it when I was younger, I was certainly not under the illusion that a car would have to stop. And I fully realized if I got hit it would be 100% my fault.

Please, take the time to educate yourself on some case law regarding this. People always talk about things they are grossly misinformed about, and when someone who is informed tries to educate them, they resist so strongly. I'll never understand why.

https://www.quora.com/Whose-fault-i...trying-to-avoid-a-crash-especially-in-the-U-S



Taxi2Uber said:


> That's a good point. Pawtism theories require a 40 mph to 0 scenario. But the pedestrian was moving, not stationary in the middle of the lane. Even some slow down from the SDC probably would have saved her life. Add a quick swerve to left, and the SDC might have just hit the back wheel of the bike or missed entirely.


If you had read my previous posts you'd have noticed that I already said that the video wasn't clear if she stopped or not when she turned her head, and I proceeded under the assumption that she kept walking. Since I have no evidence to the contrary, it seems the safest assumption. Humans walk at about 2.5 mph, so that's the speed I assumed she was moving. Stop and think about how far a vehicle travels at 40 mph for 1.5 seconds (1.0 realistically). In 1.5 seconds she moved about 5.5 feet. (3.66 feet for the more realistic 1 second), the car, on the other hand, at 1.5 seconds went about 88 feet (58.7 feet at the more realistic 1.0 seconds). A typical city street lane is between 10 and 12 feet (I split the difference and assumed 11). We can see in the video at the point of impact she was still in the lane and we have her position (approximately). Again, I did this math already, I have a 167 IQ (on the 200 point scale, 121 on the 140 scale, one of the blessings of Asperger's), so if you doubt my math, you're welcome to do your own and show me your results.

I'd already admitted in my first set of numbers that I hadn't checked for swerve time. I re-ran it with a quick glance to the mirror to ensure lane clear and start swerve (I gave .25 of a second for the glance) the swerve still hits (although the 1.5 second version is within the standard deviation, it's on the wrong side of the curve, and the 1.0 second is more realistic anyway, as who knows ahead of time that an accident is about to happen). Now, in theory if you swerved without looking first (really bad idea, as I discussed further up). With 1.5 seconds notice (you know ahead of time it's coming), and a "blind" swerve, you'd hit the bike but would probably miss her (assuming the lane next to you was actually empty so you could make it, and assuming you didn't lose control of the car by swerving that hard at that speed, which is possible). At the more realistic 1.0 second, you'd likely still hit, although it's iffy (you'd probably just graze her). Bottom line though, it's just not worth the risk. If she doesn't value her own life, she certainly doesn't value yours and the devastation that will be brought unto it if that lane isn't clear (or if you lose control).


----------



## RamzFanz

Pawtism said:


> While a human could not have seen this fast enough, now that I've seen which side she was coming from (I'd been thinking she was crossing the other way), I'm convinced the automated car probably should have seen her (or at least seen her sooner and should have started the braking process and not hit her so fast). They've probably never had to consider "rogue elements" like people crazy enough to walk in front of a car before. They'll have to now.


Quality systems like Waymo have been handling rogue behavior for years.

I can see no reason Uber's car couldn't have avoided this. Their sensors should have detected her in the dark long before a human could. Hopefully, this is the end of their ill-conceived SDC efforts and they leave it to the professionals.


----------



## Pawtism

RamzFanz said:


> Quality systems like Waymo have been handling rogue behavior for years.
> 
> I can see no reason Uber's car couldn't have avoided this. Their sensors should have detected her in the dark long before a human could. Hopefully, this is the end of their ill-conceived SDC efforts and they leave it to the professionals.


Now that I'll agree with. Once I saw that she didn't just step off the curb, but was actually coming from the other direction, I'm convinced now that while a human couldn't have (safely) avoided this, the automated car probably should have. That's one of the "pros" of the automated car is they can see things humans can't (like in the dark) and really should have seen this person crossing. I'll also agree that they should probably leave it to the pros.


----------



## Taxi2Uber

Pawtism said:


> If you think the pedestrian who causes the accident is going to stick around to take responsibility, I have a stack of case law you need to read on the subject. They almost never stick around (and a homeless pedestrian is even less likely to stick around). Even if she did, that bike is probably the only thing she owned (being homeless), good luck getting a cent out of her, guess who they're coming after next? You're living in a fantasy world where everything is always right and no one ever deviates from the right thing. In the real world, you swerve to avoid the crazy homeless person, you hit a car next to you, and cripple the passenger in that car, homeless person runs and is never seen again, you get sued and wind up homeless yourself (slight exaggeration on actually winding up homeless). In reality your insurance rates simply skyrocket, and you have to declare bankruptcy and sell your house to settle the suit. The world is not this pretty happy place you seem to think it is.
> 
> Bottom line, you swerve to miss a pedestrian (or any other road hazard) and hit another car, you are 50% at fault, the pedestrian is 50% at fault. You hit pedestrian, pedestrian is 100% at fault. It's the same if you swerve to avoid, say a car who is about to hit you from another lane. If you let them hit you, they are 100% at fault, and if you swerve and hit another car, you are 50% at fault and the one who almost hit you is 50% at fault (this is all assuming the pedestrian was in the wrong to begin with). It's the way the world works. Is it sad? Yes, I'd say so, but it's also now liability works. You should really do some research on the real world, and not just theory.
> 
> I was lucky, even before I started studying law, I was taught (one of the people who help teach me to drive happened to be a lawyer, and may have actually been my inspiration to study law) to only swerve if safe to do so. That it was better to actually get into the accident (if it wasn't your fault) than it was to swerve and cause one (that was your fault). Of course you should brake (if someone rear ends you, it's their fault for following too close), but you do NOT swerve. Later I got my CDL (Commercial Driver's License) and drove trucks for triple C (Crete Carrier Corp). While I was getting my CDL, that training was reinforced (and is starting to become standard training for commercial drivers btw. Prior to this, training they went with your "the world is a pretty, happy place" theory. "This was not a part of the training plan offered by my employer. As most managerial staff truly believe that road and driving conditions are Utopia, and a Commercial Vehicle Drivers were able to pre plan for EVERY situation." - Brenden Sinclair, Commercial Driver Trainer (see article below). So, next time someone thinks it's funny to get in front of a rig and slam on their brakes, they should be warned that the drivers are starting to be trained to try to brake but just hit them and let their dash cam be evidence). More and more driving schools are starting to train young drivers this way as well, and liability is the reason.
> 
> Here in my market, far too many pedestrians are constantly getting hit. It's because they foolishly (and incorrectly) believe that cars have to stop for them. If they are in a crosswalk (and not crossing against a light), they'd be correct, otherwise they are simply wrong. At some point the pedestrians need to take some personal responsibility and either cross at the crosswalk, or if you're going to jaywalk (I'll admit, I've done it, when I was more mobile) hustle your butt across, and make sure you aren't in a car's way. While I did do it when I was younger, I was certainly not under the illusion that a car would have to stop. And I fully realized if I got hit it would be 100% my fault.
> 
> Please, take the time to educate yourself on some case law regarding this. People always talk about things they are grossly misinformed about, and when someone who is informed tries to educate them, they resist so strongly. I'll never understand why.
> 
> https://www.quora.com/Whose-fault-i...trying-to-avoid-a-crash-especially-in-the-U-S
> 
> If you had read my previous posts you'd have noticed that I already said that the video wasn't clear if she stopped or not when she turned her head, and I proceeded under the assumption that she kept walking. Since I have no evidence to the contrary, it seems the safest assumption. Humans walk at about 2.5 mph, so that's the speed I assumed she was moving. Stop and think about how far a vehicle travels at 40 mph for 1.5 seconds (1.0 realistically). In 1.5 seconds she moved about 5.5 feet. (3.66 feet for the more realistic 1 second), the car, on the other hand, at 1.5 seconds went about 88 feet (58.7 feet at the more realistic 1.0 seconds). A typical city street lane is between 10 and 12 feet (I split the difference and assumed 11). We can see in the video at the point of impact she was still in the lane and we have her position (approximately). Again, I did this math already, I have a 167 IQ (on the 200 point scale, 121 on the 140 scale, one of the blessings of Asperger's), so if you doubt my math, you're welcome to do your own and show me your results.
> 
> I'd already admitted in my first set of numbers that I hadn't checked for swerve time. I re-ran it with a quick glance to the mirror to ensure lane clear and start swerve (I gave .25 of a second for the glance) the swerve still hits (although the 1.5 second version is within the standard deviation, it's on the wrong side of the curve, and the 1.0 second is more realistic anyway, as who knows ahead of time that an accident is about to happen). Now, in theory if you swerved without looking first (really bad idea, as I discussed further up). With 1.5 seconds notice (you know ahead of time it's coming), and a "blind" swerve, you'd hit the bike but would probably miss her (assuming the lane next to you was actually empty so you could make it, and assuming you didn't lose control of the car by swerving that hard at that speed, which is possible). At the more realistic 1.0 second, you'd likely still hit, although it's iffy (you'd probably just graze her). Bottom line though, it's just not worth the risk. If she doesn't value her own life, she certainly doesn't value yours and the devastation that will be brought unto it if that lane isn't clear (or if you lose control).


I didn't read your every word, but after a glance, seems I've addressed everything already.
You are required to reasonably avoid a accident. Not a 50/50 split. You can't just make stuff up.
Swerving doesn't mean blind swerve or wreckless swerve.
You base everything on the fixed, forward facing, dark, narrow viewing video. So all your timelines and number crunching is not accurate. Its possible that a human, moving head side to side and using peripheral vision, could have seen the pedestrian crossing much earlier, even first crossing the other road.
Just like the "safety driver" being a felon, the fact that the pedestrian may be homeless, a point you constantly emphasize, is not a factor. Doesn't mean its open season
Bottom line is the SDC failed miserably. The "safety driver" failed.



Pawtism said:


> Now that I'll agree with. Once I saw that she didn't just step off the curb, but was actually coming from the other direction, I'm convinced now that while a human couldn't have (safely) avoided this, the automated car probably should have. That's one of the "pros" of the automated car is they can see things humans can't (like in the dark) and really should have seen this person crossing. I'll also agree that they should probably leave it to the pros.


Yup. Avoidable. Now you just need to realize that a human could have avoided this. Not all, but most. Then we're home free.
Agree. Leave the driving to the pros.


----------



## tcaud

Taxi2Uber said:


> Take away your favorable bias toward SDC and it would make more sense. 2 seconds to swerve left into other lane and death avoided.


What do you think is the origin of his bias?


----------



## Taxi2Uber

tcaud said:


> What do you think is the origin of his bias?


Don't know. You should probably ask him.


----------



## Bart McCoy

Taxi2Uber said:


> Yup. Avoidable. Now you just need to realize that a human could have avoided this. Not all, but most. Then we're home free.
> Agree. Leave the driving to the pros.


Sure its possible a human could have avoided this. Anything is possible. It would have been a whole lot easier though for the pedestrian to look, and NOT cross when a car is coming. How do you not see a truck with its lights on? Roads are made for cars, that's the 1st thing you should look for.

I won't blame a driver for not being able to avoid an accident with only a split second to react, coming from a pedestrian you crossed illegally, and obviously used poor judgment and put a driver in a bind


----------



## tcaud

I'm thinking there was a hill somewhere that obscured everybody and everything's vision. I think the car should have had its brights on... that might well have averted the accident completely.


----------



## CarterPeerless

Some local info for you...

This area is not nearly as dark as the dashcam portrays it. The entire Phoenix metro area, especially Tempe, is awash in street lights. The video itself shows street lights almost directly above the pedestrian, on both sides of the road. A person's eye (acclimated to the ambient light) would have seen the woman long before the accident - but that person had its eyes off the road. 

The car failed as well. An not just a little bit. It failed catastrophically. It shouldn't even need light to do its job.

Also, no one would ever have their brights on in that area of town. That argument is just silly.


----------



## Pawtism

tcaud said:


> What do you think is the origin of his bias?


Without agreeing that I do have a bias in favor of SDC (I will state that I'm not biased against them, when done properly, as many others seem to be). I'd say that if I did have one, it's probably because I'm Asperger's and I like computers better than people most the time. They are logical, predictable, and if you know code (which I'm "meh" at, by no means an expert), easier to communicate with. 

That being said, *THIS* SDC, should have seen the pedestrian. Until the video, I was under the impression that she had stepped out from the sidewalk nearest the car. Now that I see she was coming from the other direction, I believe it to be a major failing that this car didn't predict where she would be when it would be there. I can't speak to the lighting, so Carter might be right, but based on what I saw in the video, I can't agree that most humans would have seen it (sorry Taxi2Uber), but either way, I will agree that the SDC should have (and I think that's really the core point here). Uber should probably leave this to the professionals.


----------

