6 ms·

In California, that's a legal crosswalk and the pedestrian gets right of way. In Arizona, it is not. I'm not sure a pedestrian even gets the right of way in a

In California, that's a legal crosswalk and the pedestrian gets right of way. In Arizona, it is not. I'm not sure a pedestrian even gets the right of way in a marked cross walk at all times in Arizona. Different state, different culture, different laws. We had local PD actually pull a very similar sting operation that had people complaining recently. They had a police officer with a baby stroller cross at an unmarked crosswalk and gave tickets to all drivers who did not stop for her to finish crossing the street. And going back to my teenage years, that was the one ding I had on my drivers' test (again, in California). I had stopped for a pedestrian to cross, but I did not wait until that person was completely across the road before starting again. Regardless, the video that was shared does not reflect the real world. There have been plenty of photographs including the one in this article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-26/uber-disabled-volvo-suv-s-standard-safety-system-before-fatality https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-26/uber-disa... and this one https://imgur.com/a/PM7uu https://imgur.com/a/PM7uu that show the area as well lit. I have trouble believing that the best quality video that a self-driving car company has available in it's vehicles is the one that they produced after the accident. Spending $40k on the car and $80 on a low end consumer level dash camera? That doesn't pass the sniff test.

sokoloff 9y ago
Genuine question: what are the conditions to make a particular piece of pavement a legal crosswalk in California?
- azernik 9y ago
  Basically - any (right-angled) corner of sidewalk produces a crosswalk going in the directions parallel to both its sides. Source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=275.&highlight=true&keyword=crosswalk+right%20angle https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... """ “Crosswalk” is either: (a) That portion of a roadway included within the prolongation or connection of the boundary lines of sidewalks at intersections where the intersecting roadways meet at approximately right angles, except the prolongation of such lines from an alley across a street. (b) Any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, there shall not be a crosswalk where local authorities have placed signs indicating no crossing. """
- Steeeve 9y ago
  From the driver's handbook: > Most crosswalks are located at corners, but they can also be located in the middle of the block. > Pedestrians have the right-of- way in marked or unmarked crosswalks. > Crosswalks are often marked with white lines. Yellow crosswalk lines may be painted at school crossings. Most often, crosswalks in residential areas are not marked. Interesting that the legal definition points out right angle intersections specifically. I wonder if that can be overridden by local rules.
  - sokoloff 9y ago
    So, that's not legally an unmarked crosswalk under California rules, then? (Streets are not meeting at approximately right angles and the local authorities have posted 'no pedestrians'.)
    - Steeeve 9y ago
      On the surface, no. But... The end of that walking path is perpendicular to the roadway. The other end of that walking path is perpendicular to the roadway on the other side. How it behaves in the middle (not perpendicular) is irrelevant. The walking path itself is legally considered a roadway. The "no pedestrians" sign does not face pedestrians crossing as this pedestrian did, it faces the road. So... in California drivers would be expected to give the right of way to anyone crossing the street. Assuming that the argument is won that this was not an unmarked crosswalk - California also has a blanket vehicle code law that requires drivers to "exercise due care for the safety of any pedestrian upon a roadway". Arizona actually does have a similar law: 1. Exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian on any roadway. 2. Give warning by sounding the horn when necessary. 3. Exercise proper precaution on observing a child or a confused or incapacitated person on a roadway. --- Everything is arguable. Uber threw the first shot in the PR war by producing a sub-par video and pushing the social media perception that the pedestrian was in the wrong. In a civil courtroom, different lines will be drawn. You'll have statements from Volvo, Google, and the LIDAR manufacturer that say the accident was entirely preventable. You'll have video showing that the time to react by an alert driver at the same time of night was plentiful. You'll have a dead body that was thrown a significant distance. You'll have an undertrained driver, who was without a partner in the first month of that experience. You'll have a driver not paying attention to the road. And you'll have Uber staff testing the vehicle without the full use of it's available safety systems. The question isn't fault. It's how much damage was done to Uber's self-driving vehicle program and self-driving vehicle programs in general, and how much it's going to cost Uber both financially and in PR - both of which can effect future investment, which was already nearing a close.

sokoloff 9y ago

Genuine question: what are the conditions to make a particular piece of pavement a legal crosswalk in California?

azernik 9y ago
Basically - any (right-angled) corner of sidewalk produces a crosswalk going in the directions parallel to both its sides. Source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=275.&highlight=true&keyword=crosswalk+right%20angle https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... """ “Crosswalk” is either: (a) That portion of a roadway included within the prolongation or connection of the boundary lines of sidewalks at intersections where the intersecting roadways meet at approximately right angles, except the prolongation of such lines from an alley across a street. (b) Any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, there shall not be a crosswalk where local authorities have placed signs indicating no crossing. """
Steeeve 9y ago
From the driver's handbook: > Most crosswalks are located at corners, but they can also be located in the middle of the block. > Pedestrians have the right-of- way in marked or unmarked crosswalks. > Crosswalks are often marked with white lines. Yellow crosswalk lines may be painted at school crossings. Most often, crosswalks in residential areas are not marked. Interesting that the legal definition points out right angle intersections specifically. I wonder if that can be overridden by local rules.
- sokoloff 9y ago
  So, that's not legally an unmarked crosswalk under California rules, then? (Streets are not meeting at approximately right angles and the local authorities have posted 'no pedestrians'.)
  - Steeeve 9y ago
    On the surface, no. But... The end of that walking path is perpendicular to the roadway. The other end of that walking path is perpendicular to the roadway on the other side. How it behaves in the middle (not perpendicular) is irrelevant. The walking path itself is legally considered a roadway. The "no pedestrians" sign does not face pedestrians crossing as this pedestrian did, it faces the road. So... in California drivers would be expected to give the right of way to anyone crossing the street. Assuming that the argument is won that this was not an unmarked crosswalk - California also has a blanket vehicle code law that requires drivers to "exercise due care for the safety of any pedestrian upon a roadway". Arizona actually does have a similar law: 1. Exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian on any roadway. 2. Give warning by sounding the horn when necessary. 3. Exercise proper precaution on observing a child or a confused or incapacitated person on a roadway. --- Everything is arguable. Uber threw the first shot in the PR war by producing a sub-par video and pushing the social media perception that the pedestrian was in the wrong. In a civil courtroom, different lines will be drawn. You'll have statements from Volvo, Google, and the LIDAR manufacturer that say the accident was entirely preventable. You'll have video showing that the time to react by an alert driver at the same time of night was plentiful. You'll have a dead body that was thrown a significant distance. You'll have an undertrained driver, who was without a partner in the first month of that experience. You'll have a driver not paying attention to the road. And you'll have Uber staff testing the vehicle without the full use of it's available safety systems. The question isn't fault. It's how much damage was done to Uber's self-driving vehicle program and self-driving vehicle programs in general, and how much it's going to cost Uber both financially and in PR - both of which can effect future investment, which was already nearing a close.