8 ms·

Minor correction: the area was actually very well lit with street lights. The Uber dashcam video was just poor quality so it gave the impression it was really d

Minor correction: the area was actually very well lit with street lights. The Uber dashcam video was just poor quality so it gave the impression it was really dark. https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/police-chief-said-uber-victim-came-from-the-shadows-dont-believe-it/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/police-chief-said-uber-...

rsj_hn 8y ago
I certainly believe the Uber dashcam video was poor quality. But at the same time, the videos on the link you showed are a bit misleading because the holiday lights are not strung up all year, and in any case the collision happened after the bridge, where to the right of Mill Avenue is a big golf course which is going to be dark at night, and to the left are some desolate office buildings that would also be empty and dark. It's just not a well lit area, neither is it an area with a lot of pedestrians, so there aren't many crosswalks. You can explore for yourself here: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4380916,-111.9434265,3a,75y,339.44h,88.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seT6nIdBMRY0jUlO4xlT4YA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4380916,-111.9434265,3a,75y,...
- argonaut 8y ago
  From the article: "In this nighttime video, posted to YouTube by Brian Kaufman on Wednesday, the scene of the crash can be seen around 0:33" "Black says in the video as he drives past the point in the road where Herzberg was hit (around 0:33)."
  - rsj_hn 8y ago
    Ahh, OK, so those Christmas lights are gone by then. Yes, if you look, you see a park/golf course on your right and some office buildings on your left. I guess how well lit it is will depend on how many lights are on in the office buildings, plus of course the street lights. But if you poke around the area, you see that the street lights are insufficiently spaced, at least that's my impression. That area north of the river is not a pedestrian area, even along Mill.
    - masklinn 8y ago
      The victim was struct pretty much directly under a streetlight, not at the halfway point between two streetlights. And the lights in office buildings are pretty much irrelevant, streetlights way overlight them.
    - mannykannot 8y ago
      It is irrelevant how different the lighting might be in other places or at other times.
rjf72 8y ago
This [1] has video from the dashcam as well as commercial video from news crews immediately on the scene. Keep in mind the news video is heavily lit from all the flashing lights. It's not as dark as the Uber video makes it look, but it's also nowhere near what you'd call "very well lit" especially given that the pedestrian was wearing all dark. Something that stands out to me on ars clips is that the street lights look like fireballs, even from a distance. I'd guess they have their brightness or some other setting pumped way up. Also looks like the drivers are cruising with brights and/or halogens. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufNNuafuU7M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufNNuafuU7M
- masklinn 8y ago
  > This [1] has video from the dashcam as well as commercial video from news crews immediately on the scene. Keep in mind the news video is heavily lit from all the flashing lights. It's not as dark as the Uber video makes it look, but it's also nowhere near what you'd call "very well lit" 1. It absolutely is. The specific spot (00:33 in the Kaufman video) is clear as day on a cellphone. 2. Visibility doesn't even have any relevance in the first-place, self-driving systems don't rely on visible-light cameras, there is no obstacle in the middle of the road, there is no fog, there is no rain, the self-driving system had full and perfect visibility all along. > especially given that the pedestrian was wearing all dark. Given how well-lit the road is, that would have made them more visible against the background, not less. Again not that it has any relevance. > Something that stands out to me on ars clips is that the street lights look like fireballs, even from a distance. I'd guess they have their brightness or some other setting pumped way up. Yeah, sure, who'd think a camera with a finite and middling dynamic range (such as a cellphone's camera) would try to actually capture information at night and thus saturate on bright direct light sources. > Also looks like the drivers are cruising with brights and/or halogens. Yes of course, a rando would equip their car with an omnidirectional halogen which somehow magically brightly lights up the roadside but doesn't move with their car. You've certainly cracked the code here.
  - rsj_hn 8y ago
    2. Visibility doesn't even have any relevance in the first-place It has relevance in showing that the pedestrian was failing to exercise their duty of care and was thus at fault. Jaywalking at night wearing a black shirt is pretty negligent. Jaywalking even in the day is negligent in AZ, but at night, across a major artery, it's crazy. Unless you are going to argue that they knew it was a self-driving car, and so thought that the car would see them in the dark. But they apparently didn't even know a car was there, so that's a tough sell. They didn't even look if a car was coming. A lot of people here are having a hard time coming to grips with the fact that a pedestrian has responsibilities and can be at fault in a collision with a car -- e.g. that the pedestrian doesn't automatically have the right of way or a right to be avoided every time they step into a street. I get that this is a tough concept for a lot of people to internalize, but if you're going to be arguing that someone should be charged, then at least the broad outlines of the law in AZ need to be understood.
masklinn 8y ago
That's not a minor correction at all, it's a proper correction of the smearing of the victim. Furthermore, Uber had specifically tasked the "safety driver" with both "safety driving" and operation & oversight of the automation system, wilfully splitting their focus where other manufacturers (and previous Uber trials) had one person at each post such that the safety driver could actually focus on safety driving.
- rsj_hn 8y ago
  Even if it was broad daylight, it still would be unlikely that the driver would have been charged. Read the section on "duty of care" here: https://www.jacksonwhitelaw.com/az-personal-injury/auto-pedestrian-accidents/ https://www.jacksonwhitelaw.com/az-personal-injury/auto-pede... and note that drivers only have a duty of care to yield to pedestrians who have the right of way. Pedestrians jaywalking never have the right of way. They are only allowed to cross at intersections. Drivers do not have a duty of care to yield to pedestrians who do not have the right of way, although drivers have other duties.
  - masklinn 8y ago
    > Even if it was broad daylight, it still would be unlikely that the driver would have been charged. I'm not arguing that the driver should have been charged at any point. I didn't do so even back when the event happened.
    - rsj_hn 8y ago
      Here, I'm using "driver" as a proxy for Uber as the entity controlling the car, not the person sitting in the driver's seat, who was apparently reading. Sorry for the ambiguity. E.g. if a human was driving the car and the car did the exact same thing, as the Uber car did, but it was broad daylight, then they still most likely would not be charged. If you jaywalk and get killed, it's basically your fault, and the only exception would be if the driver was drunk, or speeding, or not obeying traffic signs, etc. Jaywalkers don't have the right of way, and cars are not obligated to yield to pedestrians who don't have the right of way.
pvaldes 8y ago
This prove that the area is well lit currently, but not necessarily that it was very well lit the day and hour of the accident. It was a very notorious case. I would expect authorities silently improving the lit in the area and taking other correction measures in all those months.
- mikekchar 8y ago
  I wish I had a link for you, but there was a youtube video of the same section of road take just a day (I think) after the accident. That video was well lit.
- leereeves 8y ago
  The Ars article above is from the week after the accident.
- Felz 8y ago
  I actually used to bike that road all the time 3-4 years ago. The bridge section before it could be disturbingly dark, but the point where she was crossing was decently lit, as I recall. It was also somewhere I would never consider crossing, mostly because there was a crosswalk just up ahead. Still, if I absolutely had to it was definitely an intersection to watch carefully for cars when crossing, but one with fairly long sightlines for that.

rsj_hn 8y ago

I certainly believe the Uber dashcam video was poor quality. But at the same time, the videos on the link you showed are a bit misleading because the holiday lights are not strung up all year, and in any case the collision happened after the bridge, where to the right of Mill Avenue is a big golf course which is going to be dark at night, and to the left are some desolate office buildings that would also be empty and dark. It's just not a well lit area, neither is it an area with a lot of pedestrians, so there aren't many crosswalks. You can explore for yourself here: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4380916,-111.9434265,3a,75y,339.44h,88.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seT6nIdBMRY0jUlO4xlT4YA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4380916,-111.9434265,3a,75y,...

argonaut 8y ago
From the article: "In this nighttime video, posted to YouTube by Brian Kaufman on Wednesday, the scene of the crash can be seen around 0:33" "Black says in the video as he drives past the point in the road where Herzberg was hit (around 0:33)."
- rsj_hn 8y ago
  Ahh, OK, so those Christmas lights are gone by then. Yes, if you look, you see a park/golf course on your right and some office buildings on your left. I guess how well lit it is will depend on how many lights are on in the office buildings, plus of course the street lights. But if you poke around the area, you see that the street lights are insufficiently spaced, at least that's my impression. That area north of the river is not a pedestrian area, even along Mill.
  - masklinn 8y ago
    The victim was struct pretty much directly under a streetlight, not at the halfway point between two streetlights. And the lights in office buildings are pretty much irrelevant, streetlights way overlight them.
  - mannykannot 8y ago
    It is irrelevant how different the lighting might be in other places or at other times.

rjf72 8y ago

This [1] has video from the dashcam as well as commercial video from news crews immediately on the scene. Keep in mind the news video is heavily lit from all the flashing lights. It's not as dark as the Uber video makes it look, but it's also nowhere near what you'd call "very well lit" especially given that the pedestrian was wearing all dark. Something that stands out to me on ars clips is that the street lights look like fireballs, even from a distance. I'd guess they have their brightness or some other setting pumped way up. Also looks like the drivers are cruising with brights and/or halogens. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufNNuafuU7M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufNNuafuU7M

masklinn 8y ago
> This [1] has video from the dashcam as well as commercial video from news crews immediately on the scene. Keep in mind the news video is heavily lit from all the flashing lights. It's not as dark as the Uber video makes it look, but it's also nowhere near what you'd call "very well lit" 1. It absolutely is. The specific spot (00:33 in the Kaufman video) is clear as day on a cellphone. 2. Visibility doesn't even have any relevance in the first-place, self-driving systems don't rely on visible-light cameras, there is no obstacle in the middle of the road, there is no fog, there is no rain, the self-driving system had full and perfect visibility all along. > especially given that the pedestrian was wearing all dark. Given how well-lit the road is, that would have made them more visible against the background, not less. Again not that it has any relevance. > Something that stands out to me on ars clips is that the street lights look like fireballs, even from a distance. I'd guess they have their brightness or some other setting pumped way up. Yeah, sure, who'd think a camera with a finite and middling dynamic range (such as a cellphone's camera) would try to actually capture information at night and thus saturate on bright direct light sources. > Also looks like the drivers are cruising with brights and/or halogens. Yes of course, a rando would equip their car with an omnidirectional halogen which somehow magically brightly lights up the roadside but doesn't move with their car. You've certainly cracked the code here.
- rsj_hn 8y ago
  2. Visibility doesn't even have any relevance in the first-place It has relevance in showing that the pedestrian was failing to exercise their duty of care and was thus at fault. Jaywalking at night wearing a black shirt is pretty negligent. Jaywalking even in the day is negligent in AZ, but at night, across a major artery, it's crazy. Unless you are going to argue that they knew it was a self-driving car, and so thought that the car would see them in the dark. But they apparently didn't even know a car was there, so that's a tough sell. They didn't even look if a car was coming. A lot of people here are having a hard time coming to grips with the fact that a pedestrian has responsibilities and can be at fault in a collision with a car -- e.g. that the pedestrian doesn't automatically have the right of way or a right to be avoided every time they step into a street. I get that this is a tough concept for a lot of people to internalize, but if you're going to be arguing that someone should be charged, then at least the broad outlines of the law in AZ need to be understood.

masklinn 8y ago

That's not a minor correction at all, it's a proper correction of the smearing of the victim. Furthermore, Uber had specifically tasked the "safety driver" with both "safety driving" and operation & oversight of the automation system, wilfully splitting their focus where other manufacturers (and previous Uber trials) had one person at each post such that the safety driver could actually focus on safety driving.

rsj_hn 8y ago
Even if it was broad daylight, it still would be unlikely that the driver would have been charged. Read the section on "duty of care" here: https://www.jacksonwhitelaw.com/az-personal-injury/auto-pedestrian-accidents/ https://www.jacksonwhitelaw.com/az-personal-injury/auto-pede... and note that drivers only have a duty of care to yield to pedestrians who have the right of way. Pedestrians jaywalking never have the right of way. They are only allowed to cross at intersections. Drivers do not have a duty of care to yield to pedestrians who do not have the right of way, although drivers have other duties.
- masklinn 8y ago
  > Even if it was broad daylight, it still would be unlikely that the driver would have been charged. I'm not arguing that the driver should have been charged at any point. I didn't do so even back when the event happened.
  - rsj_hn 8y ago
    Here, I'm using "driver" as a proxy for Uber as the entity controlling the car, not the person sitting in the driver's seat, who was apparently reading. Sorry for the ambiguity. E.g. if a human was driving the car and the car did the exact same thing, as the Uber car did, but it was broad daylight, then they still most likely would not be charged. If you jaywalk and get killed, it's basically your fault, and the only exception would be if the driver was drunk, or speeding, or not obeying traffic signs, etc. Jaywalkers don't have the right of way, and cars are not obligated to yield to pedestrians who don't have the right of way.

pvaldes 8y ago

This prove that the area is well lit currently, but not necessarily that it was very well lit the day and hour of the accident. It was a very notorious case. I would expect authorities silently improving the lit in the area and taking other correction measures in all those months.

mikekchar 8y ago
I wish I had a link for you, but there was a youtube video of the same section of road take just a day (I think) after the accident. That video was well lit.
leereeves 8y ago
The Ars article above is from the week after the accident.
Felz 8y ago
I actually used to bike that road all the time 3-4 years ago. The bridge section before it could be disturbingly dark, but the point where she was crossing was decently lit, as I recall. It was also somewhere I would never consider crossing, mostly because there was a crosswalk just up ahead. Still, if I absolutely had to it was definitely an intersection to watch carefully for cars when crossing, but one with fairly long sightlines for that.