19 ms·

A self-driving Uber killed a woman. The backup driver pleaded guilty

42 points by thazework 3y ago

zirgs 3y ago
Automated system should intervene in an emergency not the other way around. Humans are bad at babysitting computers. Those who authorised testing this on public roads should also go to jail.
- friend_and_foe 3y ago
  When you get in a car, a shift in your mindset happens, you become a driving machine. You are controlling the car and can feel the inertia and have situational awareness. Sit someone at a computer to just watch what amounts to an IP cam stream out the front windshield of the car, they're not going to have any reasonable amount of reaction time. Add latency to it, theres no way this could've been stopped by an emergency operator. This "we have backup drivers just in case" is a load of bullshit so these companies can cover their ass. They removed safety features that could have prevented this from the car so they could cram more gadgets in. Their software didn't detect pedestrians unless there was a crosswalk. This machine had no business being on the road, the people that made the decision to do it anyway knew it would kill people, did a cost benefit analysis and a risk assessment, determined that the number of people it would kill was acceptable and continued on. They put people at keyboards as fall guys. 1000%, the executives and managers who green lit this should he in prison for it right now.
garte 3y ago
Why use huge SUV's as test vehicles? This seems unreasonable and ignorant to me. This normalization of huge, heavy cars on the road gets to me.
- Vecr 3y ago
  Better mounting gear and power options for the sensors? I'm not really sure. Also, cars in general might have less drop-in replacement options than SUVs in the US, and even if their platform stopped being made there's probably a bunch of used SUVs they could use. Ford stopped selling cars in the US as well, right?
  - mdwalters 3y ago
    > Ford stopped selling cars in the US as well Isn't Ford a US company? Do you have evidence of this happening?
    - Vecr 3y ago
      I guess I'm wrong. Wikipedia says that in 2018 their intention was to "phase out" all standard cars except the Mustang and continue to sell SUVs and trucks. I don't think it's a good idea to have a self driving Mustang.
      - iancmceachern 3y ago
        The electric mustang with the blue cruise isn't really a mustang, its a totally different beast with a mustang sticker on it
        Freak_NL 3y ago
        It seems a lot closer to the original Ford Mustang than an actual mustang.
        iancmceachern 3y ago
        What? Why do you say so? How so? To others - this isn't true.
        Freak_NL 3y ago
        Well, they do both have four wheels and are roughly car shaped, whilst the original is a feral horse.
        iancmceachern 3y ago
        Oh, you're referring to a horse.
edpichler 3y ago
The video: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2018/03/21/tempe-police-release-video-of-moments-before-autonomous-uber-crash/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2018/03/2...
- snvzz 3y ago
  https://archive.is/E7K9v https://archive.is/E7K9v
- bartwe 3y ago
  The video quality makes it seem like even at full attention you would see it too late, but most eyes see a lot better than that. Ofc the driver here is paying near 0 attention.
  - feintruled 3y ago
    She absolutely does seem to come out of nowhere as she is crossing in the shadow of a bridge. But I do recall a previous incident where someone had gone to the site of a similar night time accident and showed how visibility was MUCH better than the car camera suggested - car camera seemed very darkened. I wonder was it similar here? EDIT: May actually have been this very accident - I can't find the link though
    - Cthulhu_ 3y ago
      Yeah that was this one, the camera doesn't do the actual visibility justice. If it was proven the cyclist wasn't visible, AND the driver was proven to be paying attention, I'm sure she would've been exonerated. But the driver wasn't paying attention. They were watching stuff on their phone and killed someone. They were responsible for the car, not Uber and its self-driving systems - that she was responsible for testing and overseeing. I'm kinda happy for her that her punishment is fairly mild - I mean after all she'll have to live with the guilt for the rest of her life - but she's definitely responsible for it.
      - 3y ago
NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
Let's not forget a few more contributing factors to the accident. The road in question is more or less a highway, and a car in the Uber's position would've just come off the bridge, traveling at least 35mph, and have also passed under the very busy freeway above it. It's a bustling interchange, but it was still late on a dark, balmy Sunday night. It's basically not possible to properly illuminate the whole road in this stretch. To the west of the road is a medium-sized, popular concert venue, where alcohol is served at shows. To the east of the road is a small but popular city park, which does not have many amenities, and it would've been closed or close to closing at this time of night. Herzberg was found to be high on crystal meth and marijuana at the time of death. She had a criminal record and had previously been incarcerated for drug-related offenses. Herzberg had improperly laden her bicycle with many shopping bags. It was not a vehicle at this point, but more like an unstable shopping cart. Did it have lights? This is not mentioned in the report. There was a crosswalk available, several yards up the road. The crosswalk at the intersection is well-illuminated, and there is a traffic signal. The Uber vehicle would have been subject to any red light or pedestrian right-of-way at this point. Herzberg was well-committed to crossing the street and it is said she had already crossed two lanes. Perhaps those are the southbound lanes: Mill Avenue is at least 4 lanes wide at the accident site, and there is also a separate right-turn lane at Curry Road. Therefore, Herzberg should have been able to see a well-illuminated Uber vehicle with headlights on, but Herzberg was under the influence, and perhaps also under the impression that a driver would yield or stop upon noticing such a pedestrian. Now the liability in a car vs. pedestrian accident will fall on the vehicle by default, but of course it doesn't hurt us to walk in a crosswalk and obey traffic signals, in order to preserve the innocence and be indemnified against any accusation of negligence, should an accident happen to us. A very tragic situation, and Herzberg's Facebook page is in a memorialized state, for anyone who wishes to get to know her a little bit better, it's all still there for us to see.
- notmypenguin 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - asah 3y ago
    OP buried the lede: would a human driver have avoided the victim ? If a human driver would've killed her then this isn't grounds for punishing SDCs.
buro9 3y ago
3 years probation for a set of actions that resulted in a loss of life. I'm always aghast at this, we call things that happen on the road "accidents" as if it's "oops, I killed you, sorry". The language of reporting isn't on the drivers "car killed pedestrian", rather than "driver killed pedestrian". The deaths by vehicles is astonishing, last year in the USA 42,795 people died in road traffic incidents ( https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/traffic-crash-death-estimates-2022 https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/traffic-crash-death-est... ), in the UK the number is 1,695 ( https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-provisional-results-2022/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-provisional-results-2022 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casua... ). In the USA alone, that's 117 people per day. Virtually no-one who owned the set of decisions that led to those deaths face any consequence of any kind... for ending someone's life. When the article says "Getting behind the wheel of a car is a serious responsibility"... there are no real consequences for the individuals involved for their choices, and choices should have consequences. Driving too fast in rural areas, not paying attention, not keeping your car in good repair, being under the influence... these are all choices, and choices should have consequences. The consequences should be significant enough that they disincentivise that behaviour in everyone else, which means never being able to drive again, jail time, significant and meaningful financial penalties (with a large portion paid to the victims family). 3y probation, as an outlier exceptional example of consequences, shows the priority is on vehicle use rather than people's lives.
- quietbritishjim 3y ago
  > The deaths by vehicles is astonishing, last year in the USA 42,795 people died in road traffic incidents ( https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/traffic-crash-death-est https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/traffic-crash-death-est... ), in the UK the number is 1,695 ( https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casua https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casua... ). I'm not sure whether this was your point, but USA population is just under 5 times the UK population, but that US road deaths figure is more than 25 times the UK one. Of course, the nature of UK city centres and geographic size means that there is bound to be more travelling by car in the US in the first place. But at least part of the difference has to be a different emphasis on road safety in the UK compared to the US.
botanical 3y ago
I don't understand why authorities allow self-driving cars to beta test out in public. I thought waymo was the best with something like millions of hours on the road but when they started accepting passengers, it failed to proceed past a traffic cone: https://youtu.be/zdKCQKBvH-A?t=742 https://youtu.be/zdKCQKBvH-A?t=742 I wouldn't trust any of the others like Tesla and Uber that think self-driving is easy. And Tesla with their cost-saving no LIDAR nonsense. These companies should be fined hefty amounts and barred from testing out in public.
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  They weren't just given permission I'm sure. A lot of development happened on closed off circuits, and only after those passed could they file a request. And if that request included "All tests will be done under supervision of a driver that will intervene in case of issues", then... why not? Plus, if California didn't approve it, these big companies would move their operations to a state that did approve it.
  - zirgs 3y ago
    Why not? Because humans are bad at babysitting computers and get bored while the system is working properly. If there's an emergency then a distracted human will have a long reaction time. It's the opposite of a safety system like ABS that monitors brakes and wheels at all times and kicks in immediately if a human does something stupid.
- matthewfelgate 3y ago
  [flagged]
unsupp0rted 3y ago
> The March 2018 crash, the first case of a pedestrian being killed by a self-driving car in the United States, shocked Uber into pausing testing on automated vehicles Why would this entirely predictable occurrence during a self-driving testing program have shocked Uber?
- cinntaile 3y ago
  It's more human than just saying that this was inevitable.
Simulacra 3y ago
This is tragic, because had the back of driver been paying attention they could've stopped in time.

42 points by thazework 3y ago

Automated system should intervene in an emergency not the other way around. Humans are bad at babysitting computers. Those who authorised testing this on public roads should also go to jail.

friend_and_foe 3y ago
When you get in a car, a shift in your mindset happens, you become a driving machine. You are controlling the car and can feel the inertia and have situational awareness. Sit someone at a computer to just watch what amounts to an IP cam stream out the front windshield of the car, they're not going to have any reasonable amount of reaction time. Add latency to it, theres no way this could've been stopped by an emergency operator. This "we have backup drivers just in case" is a load of bullshit so these companies can cover their ass. They removed safety features that could have prevented this from the car so they could cram more gadgets in. Their software didn't detect pedestrians unless there was a crosswalk. This machine had no business being on the road, the people that made the decision to do it anyway knew it would kill people, did a cost benefit analysis and a risk assessment, determined that the number of people it would kill was acceptable and continued on. They put people at keyboards as fall guys. 1000%, the executives and managers who green lit this should he in prison for it right now.

garte 3y ago

Why use huge SUV's as test vehicles? This seems unreasonable and ignorant to me. This normalization of huge, heavy cars on the road gets to me.

Vecr 3y ago
Better mounting gear and power options for the sensors? I'm not really sure. Also, cars in general might have less drop-in replacement options than SUVs in the US, and even if their platform stopped being made there's probably a bunch of used SUVs they could use. Ford stopped selling cars in the US as well, right?
- mdwalters 3y ago
  > Ford stopped selling cars in the US as well Isn't Ford a US company? Do you have evidence of this happening?
  - Vecr 3y ago
    I guess I'm wrong. Wikipedia says that in 2018 their intention was to "phase out" all standard cars except the Mustang and continue to sell SUVs and trucks. I don't think it's a good idea to have a self driving Mustang.
    - iancmceachern 3y ago
      The electric mustang with the blue cruise isn't really a mustang, its a totally different beast with a mustang sticker on it
      - Freak_NL 3y ago
        It seems a lot closer to the original Ford Mustang than an actual mustang.
        iancmceachern 3y ago
        What? Why do you say so? How so? To others - this isn't true.
        Freak_NL 3y ago
        Well, they do both have four wheels and are roughly car shaped, whilst the original is a feral horse.
        iancmceachern 3y ago
        Oh, you're referring to a horse.

edpichler 3y ago

The video: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2018/03/21/tempe-police-release-video-of-moments-before-autonomous-uber-crash/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2018/03/2...

snvzz 3y ago
https://archive.is/E7K9v https://archive.is/E7K9v
bartwe 3y ago
The video quality makes it seem like even at full attention you would see it too late, but most eyes see a lot better than that. Ofc the driver here is paying near 0 attention.
- feintruled 3y ago
  She absolutely does seem to come out of nowhere as she is crossing in the shadow of a bridge. But I do recall a previous incident where someone had gone to the site of a similar night time accident and showed how visibility was MUCH better than the car camera suggested - car camera seemed very darkened. I wonder was it similar here? EDIT: May actually have been this very accident - I can't find the link though
  - Cthulhu_ 3y ago
    Yeah that was this one, the camera doesn't do the actual visibility justice. If it was proven the cyclist wasn't visible, AND the driver was proven to be paying attention, I'm sure she would've been exonerated. But the driver wasn't paying attention. They were watching stuff on their phone and killed someone. They were responsible for the car, not Uber and its self-driving systems - that she was responsible for testing and overseeing. I'm kinda happy for her that her punishment is fairly mild - I mean after all she'll have to live with the guilt for the rest of her life - but she's definitely responsible for it.
    - 3y ago

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago

Let's not forget a few more contributing factors to the accident. The road in question is more or less a highway, and a car in the Uber's position would've just come off the bridge, traveling at least 35mph, and have also passed under the very busy freeway above it. It's a bustling interchange, but it was still late on a dark, balmy Sunday night. It's basically not possible to properly illuminate the whole road in this stretch. To the west of the road is a medium-sized, popular concert venue, where alcohol is served at shows. To the east of the road is a small but popular city park, which does not have many amenities, and it would've been closed or close to closing at this time of night. Herzberg was found to be high on crystal meth and marijuana at the time of death. She had a criminal record and had previously been incarcerated for drug-related offenses. Herzberg had improperly laden her bicycle with many shopping bags. It was not a vehicle at this point, but more like an unstable shopping cart. Did it have lights? This is not mentioned in the report. There was a crosswalk available, several yards up the road. The crosswalk at the intersection is well-illuminated, and there is a traffic signal. The Uber vehicle would have been subject to any red light or pedestrian right-of-way at this point. Herzberg was well-committed to crossing the street and it is said she had already crossed two lanes. Perhaps those are the southbound lanes: Mill Avenue is at least 4 lanes wide at the accident site, and there is also a separate right-turn lane at Curry Road. Therefore, Herzberg should have been able to see a well-illuminated Uber vehicle with headlights on, but Herzberg was under the influence, and perhaps also under the impression that a driver would yield or stop upon noticing such a pedestrian. Now the liability in a car vs. pedestrian accident will fall on the vehicle by default, but of course it doesn't hurt us to walk in a crosswalk and obey traffic signals, in order to preserve the innocence and be indemnified against any accusation of negligence, should an accident happen to us. A very tragic situation, and Herzberg's Facebook page is in a memorialized state, for anyone who wishes to get to know her a little bit better, it's all still there for us to see.

notmypenguin 3y ago
[flagged]
- asah 3y ago
  OP buried the lede: would a human driver have avoided the victim ? If a human driver would've killed her then this isn't grounds for punishing SDCs.

buro9 3y ago

3 years probation for a set of actions that resulted in a loss of life. I'm always aghast at this, we call things that happen on the road "accidents" as if it's "oops, I killed you, sorry". The language of reporting isn't on the drivers "car killed pedestrian", rather than "driver killed pedestrian". The deaths by vehicles is astonishing, last year in the USA 42,795 people died in road traffic incidents ( https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/traffic-crash-death-estimates-2022 https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/traffic-crash-death-est... ), in the UK the number is 1,695 ( https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-provisional-results-2022/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-provisional-results-2022 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casua... ). In the USA alone, that's 117 people per day. Virtually no-one who owned the set of decisions that led to those deaths face any consequence of any kind... for ending someone's life. When the article says "Getting behind the wheel of a car is a serious responsibility"... there are no real consequences for the individuals involved for their choices, and choices should have consequences. Driving too fast in rural areas, not paying attention, not keeping your car in good repair, being under the influence... these are all choices, and choices should have consequences. The consequences should be significant enough that they disincentivise that behaviour in everyone else, which means never being able to drive again, jail time, significant and meaningful financial penalties (with a large portion paid to the victims family). 3y probation, as an outlier exceptional example of consequences, shows the priority is on vehicle use rather than people's lives.

quietbritishjim 3y ago
> The deaths by vehicles is astonishing, last year in the USA 42,795 people died in road traffic incidents ( https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/traffic-crash-death-est https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/traffic-crash-death-est... ), in the UK the number is 1,695 ( https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casua https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casua... ). I'm not sure whether this was your point, but USA population is just under 5 times the UK population, but that US road deaths figure is more than 25 times the UK one. Of course, the nature of UK city centres and geographic size means that there is bound to be more travelling by car in the US in the first place. But at least part of the difference has to be a different emphasis on road safety in the UK compared to the US.

botanical 3y ago

I don't understand why authorities allow self-driving cars to beta test out in public. I thought waymo was the best with something like millions of hours on the road but when they started accepting passengers, it failed to proceed past a traffic cone: https://youtu.be/zdKCQKBvH-A?t=742 https://youtu.be/zdKCQKBvH-A?t=742 I wouldn't trust any of the others like Tesla and Uber that think self-driving is easy. And Tesla with their cost-saving no LIDAR nonsense. These companies should be fined hefty amounts and barred from testing out in public.

Cthulhu_ 3y ago
They weren't just given permission I'm sure. A lot of development happened on closed off circuits, and only after those passed could they file a request. And if that request included "All tests will be done under supervision of a driver that will intervene in case of issues", then... why not? Plus, if California didn't approve it, these big companies would move their operations to a state that did approve it.
- zirgs 3y ago
  Why not? Because humans are bad at babysitting computers and get bored while the system is working properly. If there's an emergency then a distracted human will have a long reaction time. It's the opposite of a safety system like ABS that monitors brakes and wheels at all times and kicks in immediately if a human does something stupid.
matthewfelgate 3y ago
[flagged]

unsupp0rted 3y ago

> The March 2018 crash, the first case of a pedestrian being killed by a self-driving car in the United States, shocked Uber into pausing testing on automated vehicles Why would this entirely predictable occurrence during a self-driving testing program have shocked Uber?

cinntaile 3y ago
It's more human than just saying that this was inevitable.

Simulacra 3y ago

This is tragic, because had the back of driver been paying attention they could've stopped in time.