4 ms·

I don't think so. The police have said that 1) the pedestrian was at least partially at-fault for not crossing at a crosswalk and 2) given the circumstances, th

I don't think so. The police have said that 1) the pedestrian was at least partially at-fault for not crossing at a crosswalk and 2) given the circumstances, the same outcome would have occurred with a human driver.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
amenod 8y ago
Do you have a link or quote for 2)? I was under impression that while the video looks dark, it wasn't quite so dark in reality and human driver would have fared better (if they were driving instead of checking console every 5 seconds, that is).
- rmrfrmrf 8y ago
  Yep, here's the quote and the link: > "It's very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode (autonomous or human-driven) based on how she came from the shadows right into the roadway," Moir told the San Francisco Chronicle after viewing the footage. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2018/03/20/tempe-police-chief-fatal-uber-crash-pedestrian-likely-unavoidable/444291002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2018/03/20/tempe-police-...
  - ScottBurson 8y ago
    The dashcam footage has poor dynamic range and is not representative of what a human driver would have seen. (This has been pointed out repeatedly in previous discussions here on HN — I'm saying that not to chide you, but just to establish it as a fact.)
- ScottBurson 8y ago
  I'm not convinced that (2) is literally true — that the pedestrian would have been likely to be killed in this particular instance — but: she was strolling nonchalantly across a four-lane roadway with a 45mph speed limit, in the dark, with dark clothing on, and paying not the slightest attention to oncoming traffic. I'm sure that if she did that regularly, sooner or later she would have had at least a close call.
  - dbt00 8y ago
    This was discussed extensively here after the event happened. It's not pitch black around there and a number of people have recorded videos driving at night through that exact area and the entire road is well lit enough to see a person with a bike on the road. The low-fidelity CCD video Uber posted in the immediate aftermath is not representative of human vision or (apparently) the sensors that Uber had on the vehicle.
    - ScottBurson 8y ago
      Right, and I said exactly the same thing elsewhere [0], but I still think she was taking a big chance by being so oblivious. A 45mph speed limit means some people will be doing 55. Stroll casually across a roadway like that enough times, and you will eventually force a driver to swerve around you at high speed or make a panic stop or at the very least blast you with the horn. I can't imagine doing what she did — even thoroughly stoned, as she may have been (she tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana), I would have more sense of self-preservation than that. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17147069 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17147069
exelius 8y ago
If you’re gonna test something like this on public roads, there need to be better engineering failsafes in place. The place for the product folks to override safety features is the test track. If the feature didn’t work, they should have pulled the drivers because they were not trained to properly operate the machine. If you give the “driver” training on a car with an autonomous braking system, then give them a car without it, that’s not on the driver. Someone was negligent with safety in regards to the entire program. I’m not saying anyone needs to go to jail over this, but there do need to be charges IMO. Personal liability needs to be involved in this or executives will continue to pressure employees to do dangerous things.
EpicEng 8y ago
>2) given the circumstances, the same outcome would have occurred with a human driver. The police are in no position at assert that, nor do they know whether or not Uber is guilty of negligence. Police do not bring charges and they're not running the investigation.
- exelius 8y ago
  Right, an officer’s opinion is worth jack shit in an NTSB investigation. They go after facts.
euyyn 8y ago
Human drivers are also charged when they kill people, so (2) doesn't seem to have any weight. And partially-at-fault, on one hand, means there's fault on the driver side too, and on the other hand, is a judge's decision to make, not the police, no?
mcguire 8y ago
"the pedestrian was at least partially at-fault for not crossing at a crosswalk" That should be irrelevant. Even if the pedestrian is jay-walking, it's still not legal to hit them. Further, having solid evidence that the car detected the pedestrian and did nothing to avoid her mitigates the pedestrian's responsibility, no? Also, the "center median containing trees, shrubs, and brick landscaping in the shape of an X" sure looks like it should have some crosswalks, from the aerial photograph. What's it look like from the ground?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

amenod 8y ago

Do you have a link or quote for 2)? I was under impression that while the video looks dark, it wasn't quite so dark in reality and human driver would have fared better (if they were driving instead of checking console every 5 seconds, that is).

rmrfrmrf 8y ago
Yep, here's the quote and the link: > "It's very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode (autonomous or human-driven) based on how she came from the shadows right into the roadway," Moir told the San Francisco Chronicle after viewing the footage. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2018/03/20/tempe-police-chief-fatal-uber-crash-pedestrian-likely-unavoidable/444291002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2018/03/20/tempe-police-...
- ScottBurson 8y ago
  The dashcam footage has poor dynamic range and is not representative of what a human driver would have seen. (This has been pointed out repeatedly in previous discussions here on HN — I'm saying that not to chide you, but just to establish it as a fact.)
ScottBurson 8y ago
I'm not convinced that (2) is literally true — that the pedestrian would have been likely to be killed in this particular instance — but: she was strolling nonchalantly across a four-lane roadway with a 45mph speed limit, in the dark, with dark clothing on, and paying not the slightest attention to oncoming traffic. I'm sure that if she did that regularly, sooner or later she would have had at least a close call.
- dbt00 8y ago
  This was discussed extensively here after the event happened. It's not pitch black around there and a number of people have recorded videos driving at night through that exact area and the entire road is well lit enough to see a person with a bike on the road. The low-fidelity CCD video Uber posted in the immediate aftermath is not representative of human vision or (apparently) the sensors that Uber had on the vehicle.
  - ScottBurson 8y ago
    Right, and I said exactly the same thing elsewhere [0], but I still think she was taking a big chance by being so oblivious. A 45mph speed limit means some people will be doing 55. Stroll casually across a roadway like that enough times, and you will eventually force a driver to swerve around you at high speed or make a panic stop or at the very least blast you with the horn. I can't imagine doing what she did — even thoroughly stoned, as she may have been (she tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana), I would have more sense of self-preservation than that. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17147069 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17147069

exelius 8y ago

If you’re gonna test something like this on public roads, there need to be better engineering failsafes in place. The place for the product folks to override safety features is the test track. If the feature didn’t work, they should have pulled the drivers because they were not trained to properly operate the machine. If you give the “driver” training on a car with an autonomous braking system, then give them a car without it, that’s not on the driver. Someone was negligent with safety in regards to the entire program. I’m not saying anyone needs to go to jail over this, but there do need to be charges IMO. Personal liability needs to be involved in this or executives will continue to pressure employees to do dangerous things.

EpicEng 8y ago

>2) given the circumstances, the same outcome would have occurred with a human driver. The police are in no position at assert that, nor do they know whether or not Uber is guilty of negligence. Police do not bring charges and they're not running the investigation.

exelius 8y ago
Right, an officer’s opinion is worth jack shit in an NTSB investigation. They go after facts.

euyyn 8y ago

Human drivers are also charged when they kill people, so (2) doesn't seem to have any weight. And partially-at-fault, on one hand, means there's fault on the driver side too, and on the other hand, is a judge's decision to make, not the police, no?

mcguire 8y ago

"the pedestrian was at least partially at-fault for not crossing at a crosswalk" That should be irrelevant. Even if the pedestrian is jay-walking, it's still not legal to hit them. Further, having solid evidence that the car detected the pedestrian and did nothing to avoid her mitigates the pedestrian's responsibility, no? Also, the "center median containing trees, shrubs, and brick landscaping in the shape of an X" sure looks like it should have some crosswalks, from the aerial photograph. What's it look like from the ground?