It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UBER Driver in deadly crash texting?? but the woman killed was on a bicycle in the dark.

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 04:54 AM
link   
Watches the video a few times and to me the car should have caught the woman and tried to break was there time?? I think the woman killed was in the wrong but so was the woman in the car. Another thing the headlights on the new cars really don't help preferial vision at all. We have a couple of new vehicles and the headlights suck.

The woman appeared to be texting behind the wheel was she???
The woman on the bike came out of the dark did she do it intentionally???
Was there a combination of bicycle speed and vehicle speed that made it all inevitable.

OK she was pushing the bike.

Fox Video


edit on 22-3-2018 by mikell because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 05:08 AM
link   
a reply to: mikell

The program governing the rules of the road decided since the pedestrian wasn't in a cross walk it could legally run her over.

The decision was made in microseconds.
edit on 22-3-2018 by intrptr because: bb code



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 05:30 AM
link   
Watched it some more and have to go with suicide and UBER just happened to be tool. Never looked as she was about to get whacked.




posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 05:40 AM
link   
a reply to: mikell

I don't think it was suicide. The woman crossing the street seemed genuinely oblivious to the car. I was very surprised to learn that she wasn't found to be impaired. She just decided to cross a street at night, outside of a crosswalk, outside of the light of the street lamp, without looking before or during, and without reflectors or reflective material.

The woman driving most certainly seems to be texting. The article states she was "looking towards the console" but she smiles a bit every time she looks down so I doubt she's reacting to the radio or anything nonvisual.

The article also states that the cars sensors should have noticed the pedestrian and failed to do so.

In conclusion, I'd say it's a no fault accident. Well, every party was at fault equally. A willfully ignorant pedestrian crossing in front of a willfully ignorant "safety driver" behind the wheel of a malfunctioning "smart" car.
edit on 22-3-2018 by sine.nomine because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 05:45 AM
link   
Damn, that was so quick. Even in manual, Vasques couldn't have saved her.

You can blame the computer all you like, but the computer cannot fix stupid people.

But, hey, who needs road safety when cars have brakes?

If cars have brakes, you must acquit. Or something.



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 05:45 AM
link   
At the apparent speed indicated in the video there was no way the car could have stopped short of the victim and the only conceivable action would have been to try to steer away but the potential success of that is doubtful also.

I was under the impression that the 'autonomous' cars had better methods than simply visual ones (like radar or ultrasound) to detect obstacles their path, or to predict a risk of a conflict in advance something like TCAS systems in aircraft but there's no evidence of early detection at all there.



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 05:59 AM
link   
I'd really like to post what I think of that thing behind the wheel, but I'm afraid it would get censored. You can see her cell phone screen reflecting off her greasy face. She is probably watching videos or reading texts on it or doing something, it is clear she isn't looking at the dash but at her lap near the center console. Her reactions to her looking down make me think a text or a video (comedy?). Her phone should be confiscated for the investigation ASAP!!!

It really looks like she is out driving the head lights. I can't see that that Volvo SUV wouldn't have brighter lights than that. Maybe only fog lights were on or something b/c they weren't lighting up very far in front. There is also a strange orange/yellow light on the road sign the moment before the pedestrians feet come into view. I've never seen that color reflected from those LED headlights (which reflect a blue/white on those signs)..

IDK how fast the car was going but it looks like 45-60 mph judging by the "dotted" line in the middle of the street.

I see this as driver negligence as she made no effort to avoid this and anyone paying attention would have done something. The person crossing wasn't totally without blame it seems (can't see the cars headlights??) unless the car was missing some lights or they were obstructed. I wonder if a headlight may have been out and she thought it was a motorcycle (doubtful, but could account for being hit on the passenger side if that light was out). Guess we won't ever know why she crossed the road - she can join the chicken in the mystery.

The driver should be charged with something for sure, being this is an experimental product. This should be demanded by the people!!!!!
edit on 3 22 2018 by DigginFoTroof because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 06:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlowNail
Damn, that was so quick. Even in manual, Vasques couldn't have saved her.

You can blame the computer all you like, but the computer cannot fix stupid people.

But, hey, who needs road safety when cars have brakes?

If cars have brakes, you must acquit. Or something.



That is total BS. I was doing 75 in pitch black during rain at 2am on the beltway around a major city when I saw a car parked in my lane (totally stopped) with no lights on. IDK if the car died or was abandoned but not a single light on in the second to left lane of a 5 lane road. I swerved and missed it completely even while it was pouring rain. This was most certainly avoidable at this speed, 100%. All she had to do was a slight movement to the left and she would have missed her. Total driver negligence and company negligence!!!!!!!



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 06:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pilgrum
At the apparent speed indicated in the video there was no way the car could have stopped short of the victim and the only conceivable action would have been to try to steer away but the potential success of that is doubtful also.

I was under the impression that the 'autonomous' cars had better methods than simply visual ones (like radar or ultrasound) to detect obstacles their path, or to predict a risk of a conflict in advance something like TCAS systems in aircraft but there's no evidence of early detection at all there.


If you think this was basically unavoidable at this speed I have serious doubts you should be operating a vehicle. I've steered clear of much worse situations at much higher speeds than this with no incident. There is absolute driver negligence and company negligence!!!!!!!!



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 06:12 AM
link   
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Did all that in half a second? That's pretty impressive. Boasting a reaction time most of us can only dream of.

You don't know if the car was abandoned? Was the driver hurt? You did stop, right?



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 06:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlowNail
Did all that in half a second?


I did it in a quarter second, and not only was it pitch black, it was really dark too.




edit on 22-3-2018 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 06:20 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Single-handedly, while blindfolded?

I'm sold. Firing squad for Vasques.



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 06:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlowNail
Single-handedly, while blindfolded?


Hands? I use my thighs to drive, makes it easier to text.



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 06:25 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

If everyone were as safety conscious as you, this stuff wouldn't happen.
edit on 22 3 2018 by SlowNail because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 06:27 AM
link   
I'm still going with a headlight issue for the driver. Probably texting and in a generally quiet area doing 40 mph was legal.




posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 06:36 AM
link   
a reply to: mikell

I thought they said it was a driverless car.



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 06:36 AM
link   
a reply to: mikell

Possibly texting. Possibly keeping an eye on telemetry as the back-up driver is 'probably' meant to. I'm not defending her inattention. I'm saying nothing she could have done would have undone the danger that woman put herself in.



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 06:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
I thought they said it was a driverless car.


It was self-driving but had a back up 'safety driver' in the driver's seat incase it decided to go all Skynet.



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 06:39 AM
link   
a reply to: sine.nomine

There was no driver. It was a driverless car.

www.theverge.com...



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 06:41 AM
link   
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

No one in the car was driving.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join