7 ms·

A related BBC article[1] states: "A toxicology test carried out on Ms Herzberg after the accident returned positive results for methamphetamine and marijuana.

A related BBC article[1] states: "A toxicology test carried out on Ms Herzberg after the accident returned positive results for methamphetamine and marijuana. She did not look before crossing the road in a poorly lit area and was wearing dark clothes, the NTSB report says. And the reflectors and lights on her bike were at right-angles to the Uber car's path." Even though, the self-driving software failed to recognise her, and also totally not excusing the lack of attention of the Uber driver, you cannot rule out that under normal circumstances with a non-automated car, the pedestrian would not have been hit. Although this is a sad event, the pedestrian does carry a certain amount of blame here. It also shows that the biggest blocker to effective self driving vehicles is people, not technology. --- [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44243118 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44243118

emodendroket 8y ago
What does it matter what drugs the woman hit by the car was on? It changes nothing about the case. Looking at the video it's clear that at least some evasive action could have been taken by an attentive driver; at the least it should have been possible to hit the pedestrian at a lower speed. This article claims the car had six seconds to react (although I'm not sure what sense that's based on) and that the crash was avoidable if the operator had been paying attention, according to police.
- wilsonnb2 8y ago
  Because drugs have side effects, which may have contributed to why she put herself in the position to be hit by a car that she probably should have seen.
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    But in this case we don't have to wonder about the circumstances; we know where the car and the pedestrian were and exactly what happened. Thus going into the toxicology report serves no real purpose other than unfairly casting aspersions on the person killed.
    - azborder 8y ago
      All of these reports take into account the intoxication of any parties involved. Not sure why it’s unfair to point out that the person illegally in the road was in a state that contributed to the accident. It’s not like she was just standing on the sidewalk minding her own business.
      - emodendroket 8y ago
        How did her "state" materially contribute to the accident?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
mental1896 8y ago
Why are we treating the jaywalking here with such a light touch? If the pedestrian had crossed at a crosswalk, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  Jaywalking shouldn't carry a death sentence. If the car can't handle a jaywalker, it can't handle a toddler running into the street. That's a problem that shouldn't be hand-waved away.
  - mental1896 8y ago
    100% agree. Whether we like it or not though, sometimes it does mean death--even with normal cars. That's why crosswalks are there in the first place.
  - vorpalhex 8y ago
    Can a human driver handle those things? I had a near-collision when I was headed to work one day. I was going the speed limit on a major four lane road. I noticed ahead of me that a car was stopped in a neighboring lane. It wasn't clear if it had broken down or what, so I started slowing down. Cue a group of kids jaywalking, and running in front of my car causing me to slam on my brakes. Had I not seen or reacted to the already stopped car (or had it simply not been there), I probably could not have stopped in time. Not that I wouldn't have absolutely tried my best, but physics dictates that a compact SUV going at 45 mph doesn't come to a stop immediately. That doesn't mean we shouldn't evaluate whether Uber seriously messed up and should face dramatic consequences - it certainly seems like they disabled a critical safety system that would of saved the pedestrians life. Rather, we shouldn't make such grandiose statements like "Jaywalking shouldn't carry a death sentence" which don't really touch on the facts of the case. We should instead ask, "Did Uber's negligence cause this to result in a death when it shouldn't of been one?"
    - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
      > Can a human driver handle those things? I'll point out that in this case the crash was "entirely avoidable" according to the official police report.
CaptainZapp 8y ago
"A toxicology test carried out on Ms Herzberg after the accident returned positive results for methamphetamine and marijuana." You know. So what? I always think it's especially galling when, for example a cop shoots a black teenager, the police departments spinmeisters immediately start to smear the victim. As if smoking marijuana is a character fault and makes the victim implicitly a crook with low morals.
- vorpalhex 8y ago
  People on drugs tend to behave in erratic ways. In the case of a jaywalker, this might be as simple as crossing with no warning when a sober person might not cross. Any driver (human or machine) should of course do their absolute best to avoid a collision, but whether or not that collision is avoidable is determined in part by the object you collide with. In the case of violence by the police, somebody who is holding a weapon and behaving erratically is inherently more of a threat then somebody holding a weapon and complying. There's nothing per-say "evil" about drugs, but somebody with meth in their system is a hell of a lot harder to predict then somebody sober, whether that's in terms of jaywalking or a violent confrontation. When we evaluate situations, especially emotionally involving situations, we have to try and gather the totality of evidence.
  - CaptainZapp 8y ago
    "In the case of violence by the police, somebody who is holding a weapon and behaving erratically is inherently more of a threat then somebody holding a weapon and complying." Except that in a lot of cases the victims were unarmed.
    - vorpalhex 8y ago
      I recently took up martial arts, and after sparring a few times, I've learned that you do not need to be armed to be a threat. If somebody drives an elbow to the back of your head with force, you're going to the hospital. If somebody manages to get you in a clinch, you are likely going to pass out. If somebody manages to get you on the ground while they're standing - you better really hope they're content to walk away at that point because they can permanently mess you up for the rest of your life. Any case of self defense needs to be evaluated by a court. I'm not suggesting police should get a free pass, but that somebody is unarmed does not mean they are not a lethal threat.
nortiero 8y ago
Other videos show the area was not "poorly lit". That's only because of the potato cam video made available by uber personnel.
wavefunction 8y ago
This was normal conditions.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
rasz 8y ago
1 the road was NOT poorly lit 2 self-driving software recognized obstacle just fine, but was programmed to DO NOTHING

emodendroket 8y ago

What does it matter what drugs the woman hit by the car was on? It changes nothing about the case. Looking at the video it's clear that at least some evasive action could have been taken by an attentive driver; at the least it should have been possible to hit the pedestrian at a lower speed. This article claims the car had six seconds to react (although I'm not sure what sense that's based on) and that the crash was avoidable if the operator had been paying attention, according to police.

wilsonnb2 8y ago
Because drugs have side effects, which may have contributed to why she put herself in the position to be hit by a car that she probably should have seen.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  But in this case we don't have to wonder about the circumstances; we know where the car and the pedestrian were and exactly what happened. Thus going into the toxicology report serves no real purpose other than unfairly casting aspersions on the person killed.
  - azborder 8y ago
    All of these reports take into account the intoxication of any parties involved. Not sure why it’s unfair to point out that the person illegally in the road was in a state that contributed to the accident. It’s not like she was just standing on the sidewalk minding her own business.
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      How did her "state" materially contribute to the accident?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

mental1896 8y ago

Why are we treating the jaywalking here with such a light touch? If the pedestrian had crossed at a crosswalk, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

ceejayoz 8y ago
Jaywalking shouldn't carry a death sentence. If the car can't handle a jaywalker, it can't handle a toddler running into the street. That's a problem that shouldn't be hand-waved away.
- mental1896 8y ago
  100% agree. Whether we like it or not though, sometimes it does mean death--even with normal cars. That's why crosswalks are there in the first place.
- vorpalhex 8y ago
  Can a human driver handle those things? I had a near-collision when I was headed to work one day. I was going the speed limit on a major four lane road. I noticed ahead of me that a car was stopped in a neighboring lane. It wasn't clear if it had broken down or what, so I started slowing down. Cue a group of kids jaywalking, and running in front of my car causing me to slam on my brakes. Had I not seen or reacted to the already stopped car (or had it simply not been there), I probably could not have stopped in time. Not that I wouldn't have absolutely tried my best, but physics dictates that a compact SUV going at 45 mph doesn't come to a stop immediately. That doesn't mean we shouldn't evaluate whether Uber seriously messed up and should face dramatic consequences - it certainly seems like they disabled a critical safety system that would of saved the pedestrians life. Rather, we shouldn't make such grandiose statements like "Jaywalking shouldn't carry a death sentence" which don't really touch on the facts of the case. We should instead ask, "Did Uber's negligence cause this to result in a death when it shouldn't of been one?"
  - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
    > Can a human driver handle those things? I'll point out that in this case the crash was "entirely avoidable" according to the official police report.

CaptainZapp 8y ago

"A toxicology test carried out on Ms Herzberg after the accident returned positive results for methamphetamine and marijuana." You know. So what? I always think it's especially galling when, for example a cop shoots a black teenager, the police departments spinmeisters immediately start to smear the victim. As if smoking marijuana is a character fault and makes the victim implicitly a crook with low morals.

vorpalhex 8y ago
People on drugs tend to behave in erratic ways. In the case of a jaywalker, this might be as simple as crossing with no warning when a sober person might not cross. Any driver (human or machine) should of course do their absolute best to avoid a collision, but whether or not that collision is avoidable is determined in part by the object you collide with. In the case of violence by the police, somebody who is holding a weapon and behaving erratically is inherently more of a threat then somebody holding a weapon and complying. There's nothing per-say "evil" about drugs, but somebody with meth in their system is a hell of a lot harder to predict then somebody sober, whether that's in terms of jaywalking or a violent confrontation. When we evaluate situations, especially emotionally involving situations, we have to try and gather the totality of evidence.
- CaptainZapp 8y ago
  "In the case of violence by the police, somebody who is holding a weapon and behaving erratically is inherently more of a threat then somebody holding a weapon and complying." Except that in a lot of cases the victims were unarmed.
  - vorpalhex 8y ago
    I recently took up martial arts, and after sparring a few times, I've learned that you do not need to be armed to be a threat. If somebody drives an elbow to the back of your head with force, you're going to the hospital. If somebody manages to get you in a clinch, you are likely going to pass out. If somebody manages to get you on the ground while they're standing - you better really hope they're content to walk away at that point because they can permanently mess you up for the rest of your life. Any case of self defense needs to be evaluated by a court. I'm not suggesting police should get a free pass, but that somebody is unarmed does not mean they are not a lethal threat.

nortiero 8y ago

Other videos show the area was not "poorly lit". That's only because of the potato cam video made available by uber personnel.

wavefunction 8y ago

This was normal conditions.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

rasz 8y ago

1 the road was NOT poorly lit 2 self-driving software recognized obstacle just fine, but was programmed to DO NOTHING