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

a reply to: badw0lf



Sorry
I don't click on every link and I sure don't want to see video of a woman getting run down by a car.
I would think the term driverless car is pretty descriptive ordinarily. However I guess hands off driving is more what this is since it requires a person be present to back it up. My bad. I don't know this.

After watching that video, I think this is an accident that would have happened at least 70% of the time with a human attentively driving. Yes, some people would have had time to react, but most would have slammed on the brakes to late. Only a very few would have the presence of mind to swerve in time.

Yes, you would think the car should have seen her, as it should be better than seeing in the dark than humans. But really after watching this video I put far less blame on the car, and much much more blame on the pedestrian.

I really don't think this incident should shut down the testing for long - yes they should figure why the car did not see her and try and fix it, but I really don't see this as a horrible error by the car.

a reply to: mikell

Did I just see a bearded lady?

a reply to: Sillyolme

it cuts off before impact.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: badw0lf



Sorry
I don't click on every link and I sure don't want to see video of a woman getting run down by a car.
I would think the term driverless car is pretty descriptive ordinarily. However I guess hands off driving is more what this is since it requires a person be present to back it up. My bad. I don't know this.

So you are admitting you didn't even watch the video, but still felt the need to post?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, you seem to be out of touch with everything, but it never seems to stop you from spitting out your uninformed opinion loudly.

There are zero cars driving around on public streets without a human driver. It is illegal currently, and this Uber testing on public roads has only been going on for less than 6 months.

This seems to be a flaw with the car itself. It is not the fault of the driver who has been taught to believe that these cars can drive themselves. It is not the problem with the woman pushing the bike, she has the right of way and I do not know if she could hear the cars motor running. These new cars are way too quiet, I do not like them when I am walking in town. The headlights are not very bright on that car, I sure would not want those headlights on my car. I suppose they do not need to see like we do, everything is sensors which apparently do not work well.

The headlight issue is with all new cars it seems after having conversations with coworkers. The wife's 17 GMC has straight lines where the light cuts off left and right and with the dims it is very hard to drive in rolling areas because the light doesn't spread out. My 18 GMC is the same way but sits a bit higher and that helps but I am going to try to adjust them.

Why the car didn't see her they will figure that out.

a reply to: mikell


Same video but a picture of the scene apparently right after and questioning whether anybody could have stopped in time.

Another Source

originally posted by: proximo
After watching that video, I think this is an accident that would have happened at least 70% of the time with a human attentively driving. Yes, some people would have had time to react, but most would have slammed on the brakes to late. Only a very few would have the presence of mind to swerve in time.

Yes, you would think the car should have seen her, as it should be better than seeing in the dark than humans. But really after watching this video I put far less blame on the car, and much much more blame on the pedestrian.

I really don't think this incident should shut down the testing for long - yes they should figure why the car did not see her and try and fix it, but I really don't see this as a horrible error by the car.

Truth. I wonder if the fact she was pushing a bike may have anything to do with why the sensors didn't trigger the car to stop. Regardless though, I would think any radar type sensor would register that there's an object there that is not moving fast enough to stay ahead of the vehicle and should tell the computer to stop the vehicle.

originally posted by: rickymouse
This seems to be a flaw with the car itself. It is not the fault of the driver who has been taught to believe that these cars can drive themselves. It is not the problem with the woman pushing the bike, she has the right of way and I do not know if she could hear the cars motor running. These new cars are way too quiet, I do not like them when I am walking in town. The headlights are not very bright on that car, I sure would not want those headlights on my car. I suppose they do not need to see like we do, everything is sensors which apparently do not work well.

I don't think the authorities agree with you because they're treating it as the pedestrian's fault. You don't have the right of way to cross the middle of a two-lane highway. Please don't teach this disinformation to your kids. Pedestrians only have the right of way at designated crosswalks. And even if you did have the right of way, that rule doesn't trump the laws of physics. If you walk out in front of a fast-moving car on a dark road, you're probably gonna die. Are you gonna feel any better if your last thought is "Well at least I was following the law"? Even though, in this case, she actually wasn't.

a reply to: mikell

The person in the car had one job and that was to make sure it doesn't kill someone , if she failed to do that job because she wasn't paying attention then she is responsible not the victim.

Driverless technology is nowhere near ready to be used on the open road , I hope this woman's death will act as a wake up call to those who are trying to run before they can walk.

RiP

a reply to: face23785

The headlights seemed too dim. Those cars are super quiet. I never got hit, I cross outside of the crosswalk all the time. Yes, that woman was not paying attention well enough, but I still blame the new super quiet vehicles because when you hear a car you have two different senses to allert you. I almost got hit by an electric car in a parking lot, I heard nothing and I have been conditioned from fifty years of living to pay attention to sounds when on the road along with visual.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

I'm sorry Diggin.

I've no right to make snap judgments and make awful implications towards you.

I've been acting like an arsehole all day and you didn't deserve that attack. I've never met you and I'm in no position to look down on anyone. I've been snarky and personal and I was wrong.

I should have treated you with respect. You were simply contributing and my input has been less than helpful.

I was going to PM you, but felt I at least owe you the sincerity of a public apology.

I hope I haven't soured you to ATS at all, this place is full of good people, I'm just not one of them. How I behave is not representative of the people here.

Again, I'm sorry and wish you the best.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: mikell

I thought they said it was a driverless car.

The car was in self-driving mode. She was there to take action if something happened. But that car was traveling at 40mph within the speed limit. Stopping distance meant the woman would have been hit regardless.

The only thing that would have prevented this accident would have been night-vision cameras like the X27-HD

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: face23785

The headlights seemed too dim. Those cars are super quiet. I never got hit, I cross outside of the crosswalk all the time. Yes, that woman was not paying attention well enough, but I still blame the new super quiet vehicles because when you hear a car you have two different senses to allert you. I almost got hit by an electric car in a parking lot, I heard nothing and I have been conditioned from fifty years of living to pay attention to sounds when on the road along with visual.

On a dark road like that, those headlights were plenty bright enough for her to know a car was coming if she was paying even the slightest bit of attention. I won't be surprised if they find out she was intoxicated or high. I've been crossing roads, parking lots, etc a long time too, and I always look. I'd advise you to do the same. Time to recondition yourself to fit reality.

I will say all these new cars having such lousy headlights gives drivers less time to react though, and that's something that really needs to be addressed.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
What's the point of driverless cars that need a driver?

Jumbo shrimp?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

What's the point of driverless cars that need a driver?

I didn't even see this on the previous page. Have you read anything about this at all? What is with you with going into threads and posting when you don't even know the most basic information about the subject? You are seriously the most uninformed person I've ever seen.

Driverless cars are still in the testing phase. The occupant is in the car to take control in case the computer does something unsafe. The idea is that eventually when they get the bugs worked out of it it won't need monitoring. Whether they will ever get to that point, who knows? In this case the occupant wasn't looking, and the reaction time was so short it probably wouldn't have mattered anyway.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: badw0lf



Sorry
I don't click on every link and I sure don't want to see video of a woman getting run down by a car.
I would think the term driverless car is pretty descriptive ordinarily. However I guess hands off driving is more what this is since it requires a person be present to back it up. My bad. I don't know this.

No offense, but maybe next time don't try to correct people commenting on an article you've never even glanced at.

Having watched the video and read the articles the following can be stated:

The fault lies with the vehicle, the person in the drivers seat and the person crossing the road.

The fault lies with the vehicle, cause it should have detected the obstruction in the road, and started to slow down and alert the driver. And ultimately from the video, it did not. There are some things one would not want to hit with their vehicle, such as a limb or say a tumbleweed, that could do some damage. Deer and other wildlife can do a number on vehicles that cross the road, which is usually at night. Deer are known to freeze when the light hits their eyes, and move in unpredictable ways.

And then there are states where the pedestrian always have the right of way. What if this was a child, or a disabled person in a neighborhood?

The person, who was riding in this vehicle, should have been paying attention. She was not, she was looking at other things, and most driverless cars, can not operate without human assistance, the quick decisions that are normally having to be made. The driver was clearly distracted and ultimately should bear some of the blame for this.

The final part is the pedestrian. She was on a bike, and was not following the rules of the road, and that in itself could be an issue as well. In some states, the pedestrian has the right of way, and especially when it comes to those on a bike as well.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig

And then there are states where the pedestrian always have the right of way. What if this was a child, or a disabled person in a neighborhood?

I don't think there's any state where pedestrians always have the right of way. If you want to look through all 50 entries here to prove me wrong, be my guest. Post what you find. Everywhere I've been, that only applies if they're at a crosswalk. The incident in question happened in Arizona, and Arizona law does not always give pedestrians the right of way, only within a crosswalk, and even then there are conditions. Note the bolded portion:

Arizona: Vehicles must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians within a crosswalk that are in the same half of the roadway as the vehicle or when a pedestrian is approaching closely enough from the opposite side of the roadway to constitute a danger. Pedestrians may not suddenly leave the curb and enter a crosswalk into the path of a moving vehicle that is so close the vehicle is unable to yield. Pedestrians must yield the right-of-way to vehicles when crossing outside of a marked crosswalk or an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection. Where traffic control devices are in operation, pedestrians may only cross between two adjacent intersections in a marked crosswalk.

She was not within a crosswalk so the vehicle clearly had the right of way. The local police chief has already said the vehicle is unlikely to be found at fault for this incident, driver or not:

Tempe Police Chief Sylvia Moir said it's unlikely the SUV, whether driven by a human or autonomous technology, would be found at fault. "It's very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode," Moir told the San Francisco Chronicle.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig

The final part is the pedestrian. She was on a bike

Just a minor detail, she wasn't on a bike, she was pushing a bike across the road on foot.

I bet there's somebody out there sniffing around for a multi-million dollar lawsuit.

EDIT: From what I understand about most liability issues, a lot of it depends on whether or not the driver could have reasonably avoided the accident. If it is shown that there's no way a person could have avoided the accident, if it was just a case of extremely bad timing, then they are not technically liable.