Self-driving Uber car killed a pedestrian
- Thread starter Trav
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Nick1994
Dashcam footage has been released. Looks like the driver was texting most of the time. However, I don't think the accident was avoidable. If I were driving my car and the lady ran a cross the street in a shadow, I probably wouldn't have been able to avoid the accident either. Shame on the driver though. She should be fired. https://youtu.be/Cuo8eq9C3Ec
That looked like the car SHOULD have braked. I heard the car never even braked. The victim was well in front of the car (several steps in video), so there was some time to at least slow down.
What happened to the sensor-to-brake signal path???? Something is wrong here. Can't wait to see the investigation. We need to know how the software and hardware reacted or failed to react here.
Also, the car was speeding. A little bit. 38 mph in a 35 zone. Not sure how an automated car can be allowed to speed.
This whole thing might get interesting after all.
Dashcam footage has been released. Looks like the driver was texting most of the time. However, I don't think the accident was avoidable. If I were driving my car and the lady ran a cross the street in a shadow, I probably wouldn't have been able to avoid the accident either. Shame on the driver though. She should be fired. https://youtu.be/Cuo8eq9C3Ec
That looked like the car SHOULD have braked. I heard the car never even braked. The victim was well in front of the car (several steps in video), so there was some time to at least slow down.
What happened to the sensor-to-brake signal path???? Something is wrong here. Can't wait to see the investigation. We need to know how the software and hardware reacted or failed to react here.
Also, the car was speeding. A little bit. 38 mph in a 35 zone. Not sure how an automated car can be allowed to speed.
This whole thing might get interesting after all.
Forbes magazine summed the new video evidence up nicely: "There was no other traffic around, and nothing to obstruct the sensors' view of Herzberg. The Volvo XC90s that Uber is using for development are equipped with cameras, radar and lidar sensors. The radar and lidar are capable of “seeing” their surroundings in complete darkness and should have easily detected Herzberg’s presence in the roadway anywhere from 150 feet to 300 feet away or more depending on the types of sensors that Uber is using.
The Volvo was travelling at 38 mph, a speed from which it should have been easily able to stop in no more than 60-70 feet. At least it should have been able to steer around Herzberg to the left without hitting her."
The Volvo was travelling at 38 mph, a speed from which it should have been easily able to stop in no more than 60-70 feet. At least it should have been able to steer around Herzberg to the left without hitting her."
As tragic as it is to have a person die, this event will hopefully show the masses that the self driving cars are not "just around the corner" yet. The silicone valley smoke and mirrors magicians had a lot of people convinced that it was so, some local governments too, probably with some greasing.
By the way, the perosn that was supposed to monitor the road in that car should be charged with negligence or something like that and fired. He clearly did not perform his duties as an employee and did not have full command of the vehicle. I'm sure that distracted driving and some other moving violations apply to this case.
By the way, the perosn that was supposed to monitor the road in that car should be charged with negligence or something like that and fired. He clearly did not perform his duties as an employee and did not have full command of the vehicle. I'm sure that distracted driving and some other moving violations apply to this case.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Forbes magazine summed the new video evidence up nicely: "There was no other traffic around, and nothing to obstruct the sensors' view of Herzberg. The Volvo XC90s that Uber is using for development are equipped with cameras, radar and lidar sensors. The radar and lidar are capable of “seeing” their surroundings in complete darkness and should have easily detected Herzberg’s presence in the roadway anywhere from 150 feet to 300 feet away or more depending on the types of sensors that Uber is using.
The Volvo was travelling at 38 mph, a speed from which it should have been easily able to stop in no more than 60-70 feet. At least it should have been able to steer around Herzberg to the left without hitting her."
+1 After watching the video, that should have been an avoidable accident with an automated system or proper human driver.
The lady is walking across the road partially lit by a streetlight and the car doesn't appear to brake significantly until 10' away, and the car is only going 38mph... Anyone own a car with headlights so poor to be out driven at only 38 mph?
A big lawsuit will help provide incentive to make a better automated system than that poor excuse...
Forbes magazine summed the new video evidence up nicely: "There was no other traffic around, and nothing to obstruct the sensors' view of Herzberg. The Volvo XC90s that Uber is using for development are equipped with cameras, radar and lidar sensors. The radar and lidar are capable of “seeing” their surroundings in complete darkness and should have easily detected Herzberg’s presence in the roadway anywhere from 150 feet to 300 feet away or more depending on the types of sensors that Uber is using.
The Volvo was travelling at 38 mph, a speed from which it should have been easily able to stop in no more than 60-70 feet. At least it should have been able to steer around Herzberg to the left without hitting her."
+1 After watching the video, that should have been an avoidable accident with an automated system or proper human driver.
The lady is walking across the road partially lit by a streetlight and the car doesn't appear to brake significantly until 10' away, and the car is only going 38mph... Anyone own a car with headlights so poor to be out driven at only 38 mph?
A big lawsuit will help provide incentive to make a better automated system than that poor excuse...
KrisZ, about the human in the car: Its very very difficult to remain dilligent when there is almost nothing to do. Human Factors problem here. We can't maintain high alert under those boring circumstances. Human nature is what it is. Requires engagement and attention.
I predict there will be a big wrongful death suit of whatever relatives this lady has.
Then, the NTSB will demand that the root cause or causes be revealed for the non-detection and/or non-braking, and corrections made to the design before any self-driving cars will be allowed to continue using humans as guinea pigs on the roads.
In aviation avionics software, there is redundancy, fully-monitored systems (a separate computer monitors the operation of the main computers), and BIT (built-in testing), along with real-time software reliability tricks too. All of these should be a part of the systems to get decent reliability.
Then, the NTSB will demand that the root cause or causes be revealed for the non-detection and/or non-braking, and corrections made to the design before any self-driving cars will be allowed to continue using humans as guinea pigs on the roads.
In aviation avionics software, there is redundancy, fully-monitored systems (a separate computer monitors the operation of the main computers), and BIT (built-in testing), along with real-time software reliability tricks too. All of these should be a part of the systems to get decent reliability.
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
As tragic as it is to have a person die, this event will hopefully show the masses that the self driving cars are not "just around the corner" yet. The silicone valley smoke and mirrors magicians had a lot of people convinced that it was so, some local governments too, probably with some greasing.
By the way, the perosn that was supposed to monitor the road in that car should be charged with negligence or something like that and fired. He clearly did not perform his duties as an employee and did not have full command of the vehicle. I'm sure that distracted driving and some other moving violations apply to this case.
Not sure why it didn't stop either, I think lots of cars now have some sort of collision prevention or auto stop tech and judging from the video, those types of tech should have kicked in. My only guess is that the software is either looking for a human or someone on a bike but isn't used to someone walking with a bike across the street so didn't identify it. Still I think any collision prevention tech would have stopped for an unknown object in front of the car.
As tragic as it is to have a person die, this event will hopefully show the masses that the self driving cars are not "just around the corner" yet. The silicone valley smoke and mirrors magicians had a lot of people convinced that it was so, some local governments too, probably with some greasing.
By the way, the perosn that was supposed to monitor the road in that car should be charged with negligence or something like that and fired. He clearly did not perform his duties as an employee and did not have full command of the vehicle. I'm sure that distracted driving and some other moving violations apply to this case.
Not sure why it didn't stop either, I think lots of cars now have some sort of collision prevention or auto stop tech and judging from the video, those types of tech should have kicked in. My only guess is that the software is either looking for a human or someone on a bike but isn't used to someone walking with a bike across the street so didn't identify it. Still I think any collision prevention tech would have stopped for an unknown object in front of the car.
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
KrisZ, about the human in the car: Its very very difficult to remain dilligent when there is almost nothing to do. Human Factors problem here. We can't maintain high alert under those boring circumstances. Human nature is what it is. Requires engagement and attention.
I realize this, but it does not absolve them from the responsibility. That person was specifically put there with the specific reason, that is to take control in an emergency and that's how they convinced everyone that their testing of these cars on the road is safe.
Of course what you're saying has been known for decades, that's why I think the penalties for the people involved and the corporations should start being applied. They knew full well of the risks.
KrisZ, about the human in the car: Its very very difficult to remain dilligent when there is almost nothing to do. Human Factors problem here. We can't maintain high alert under those boring circumstances. Human nature is what it is. Requires engagement and attention.
I realize this, but it does not absolve them from the responsibility. That person was specifically put there with the specific reason, that is to take control in an emergency and that's how they convinced everyone that their testing of these cars on the road is safe.
Of course what you're saying has been known for decades, that's why I think the penalties for the people involved and the corporations should start being applied. They knew full well of the risks.
KrisZ, I put about 1% of the blame on the person in the Volvo, and 99% of the blame on the brainless wonders at Uber.
There are a lot of factors at play here.
1. The pedestrian made an error. Even though they DO have the right of way, common sense says you should be mindful of vehicles since they can kill you. While you do have the right of way as a pedestrian, never ASSUME the driver can see you.
2. The car is self-driving, and obviously the sensors failed, but is the driver allowed to intervene when the car is in self-driving mode? If so, the driver should be at fault, unless they tried to intervene but couldn't (video seems to show otherwise).
3. Sadly this is the consequence of turning over the responsibility of driving 100% to the machine. This is similar to pilots who put the plane on autopilot then walk away and fail to see a sensor warning or the mountain straight ahead.
1. The pedestrian made an error. Even though they DO have the right of way, common sense says you should be mindful of vehicles since they can kill you. While you do have the right of way as a pedestrian, never ASSUME the driver can see you.
2. The car is self-driving, and obviously the sensors failed, but is the driver allowed to intervene when the car is in self-driving mode? If so, the driver should be at fault, unless they tried to intervene but couldn't (video seems to show otherwise).
3. Sadly this is the consequence of turning over the responsibility of driving 100% to the machine. This is similar to pilots who put the plane on autopilot then walk away and fail to see a sensor warning or the mountain straight ahead.
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
KrisZ, I put about 1% of the blame on the person in the Volvo, and 99% of the blame on the brainless wonders at Uber.
What about the pedestrian? I blame her more than the other two. I'd say at least 75-90% is the pedestrians fault. Crossing in the dark in the middle of the street with an oncoming car that doesn't slow down? With everyone texting and on their phones one shouldn't bet their life the driver will slow down.
KrisZ, I put about 1% of the blame on the person in the Volvo, and 99% of the blame on the brainless wonders at Uber.
What about the pedestrian? I blame her more than the other two. I'd say at least 75-90% is the pedestrians fault. Crossing in the dark in the middle of the street with an oncoming car that doesn't slow down? With everyone texting and on their phones one shouldn't bet their life the driver will slow down.
Jeepman, I believe you are mistaken. This was Arizona, not New York. The pedestrian did not have the right of way, not being in a crosswalk or at a controlled intersection.
In New York you can't hit em. If they are jaywalking out West, you can not only run over them, you can collect from the estate to cover damages to your car. Technically you aren't supposed to aim for them, but...
Normal driver car this wouldn't be news, and the driver would probably be exonerated. Driverless car is a big difference. The question I have is since Uber stole the driverless car tech from Waymo, can Waymo also be sued?
In New York you can't hit em. If they are jaywalking out West, you can not only run over them, you can collect from the estate to cover damages to your car. Technically you aren't supposed to aim for them, but...
Normal driver car this wouldn't be news, and the driver would probably be exonerated. Driverless car is a big difference. The question I have is since Uber stole the driverless car tech from Waymo, can Waymo also be sued?
Last edited:
Many do have radar Z. A radar based system might have caught it but the cross section is very slim compared to an auto.
A black overcoat - no side reflectors, crossing coming from the median at night on a pseudo highway with very limited visibility - tough challenge for human and computer alike.
I can see how an image based system alone would miss that as it can only catch what the headlights illuminate and has dynamic range issues.
Auto dimming high beams might have been a real savior here.
UD
A black overcoat - no side reflectors, crossing coming from the median at night on a pseudo highway with very limited visibility - tough challenge for human and computer alike.
I can see how an image based system alone would miss that as it can only catch what the headlights illuminate and has dynamic range issues.
Auto dimming high beams might have been a real savior here.
UD
Last edited:
Well, the automation failed, first and foremost. Sure the lady shouldn't have walked out there. People aren't perfect, especially those like her with possibly impaired mental ability due to past drug use. Actually anybody can space-out and walk in front of a car or subway train, so we are fallible too, just more so if we are sleepy, taking drugs or alcohol, or have some brain damage from past habits or genetic issues.
Bottom line though is that a vehicle must at least try to stop or swerve a little if someone gets in front. That's where Uber will pay dearly for this.
I'm looking forward to the Accident Report (NTSB) since it will reveal just how many design tricks were (or were NOT!) used to make the system more reliable.
Bottom line though is that a vehicle must at least try to stop or swerve a little if someone gets in front. That's where Uber will pay dearly for this.
I'm looking forward to the Accident Report (NTSB) since it will reveal just how many design tricks were (or were NOT!) used to make the system more reliable.
All this automation was sold to us as much better than human beings. Musk even boasted about it and many agreed with him. Why all of the sudden people are excusing the technology saying that even a human driver would've run this woman over?
If all this tech is supposed to match human abilities, then why bother?
If all this tech is supposed to match human abilities, then why bother?
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
All this automation was sold to us as much better than human beings. Musk even boasted about it and many agreed with him. Why all of the sudden people are excusing the technology saying that even a human driver would've run this woman over?
If all this tech is supposed to match human abilities, then why bother?
Because it won't be drunk, on drugs, on the phone, texting or sleepy? It's estimated that human error causes 94% of the crashes out there. You want a system that reduces that to 0? That still leaves 6% out there. Even if it just cut it down to 50%, that would still save about 20,000 lives a year.
I suppose we should just let those 40k die every year til it's perfect.
All this automation was sold to us as much better than human beings. Musk even boasted about it and many agreed with him. Why all of the sudden people are excusing the technology saying that even a human driver would've run this woman over?
If all this tech is supposed to match human abilities, then why bother?
Because it won't be drunk, on drugs, on the phone, texting or sleepy? It's estimated that human error causes 94% of the crashes out there. You want a system that reduces that to 0? That still leaves 6% out there. Even if it just cut it down to 50%, that would still save about 20,000 lives a year.
I suppose we should just let those 40k die every year til it's perfect.
Originally Posted By: ArrestMeRedZ
Jeepman, I believe you are mistaken. This was Arizona, not New York. The pedestrian did not have the right of way, not being in a crosswalk or at a controlled intersection.
In New York you can't hit em. If they are jaywalking out West, you can not only run over them, you can collect from the estate to cover damages to your car. Technically you aren't supposed to aim for them, but...
Normal driver car this wouldn't be news, and the driver would probably be exonerated. Driverless car is a big difference. The question I have is since Uber stole the driverless car tech from Waymo, can Waymo also be sued?
Yup, I just checked and you're right, which is all the more reason to yield to cars.
Jeepman, I believe you are mistaken. This was Arizona, not New York. The pedestrian did not have the right of way, not being in a crosswalk or at a controlled intersection.
In New York you can't hit em. If they are jaywalking out West, you can not only run over them, you can collect from the estate to cover damages to your car. Technically you aren't supposed to aim for them, but...
Normal driver car this wouldn't be news, and the driver would probably be exonerated. Driverless car is a big difference. The question I have is since Uber stole the driverless car tech from Waymo, can Waymo also be sued?
Yup, I just checked and you're right, which is all the more reason to yield to cars.
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
KrisZ, about the human in the car: Its very very difficult to remain dilligent when there is almost nothing to do. Human Factors problem here. We can't maintain high alert under those boring circumstances. Human nature is what it is. Requires engagement and attention.
I realize this, but it does not absolve them from the responsibility. That person was specifically put there with the specific reason, that is to take control in an emergency and that's how they convinced everyone that their testing of these cars on the road is safe.
Of course what you're saying has been known for decades, that's why I think the penalties for the people involved and the corporations should start being applied. They knew full well of the risks.
Who had custody of the dashcam footage, and what did they have to gain by releasing it to the public, before the investigation ?
Clearly they thought that releasing the video would take heat away from their self driving cars, and throw it straight at the texting problem.
And as the thread evolved...it worked.
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
KrisZ, about the human in the car: Its very very difficult to remain dilligent when there is almost nothing to do. Human Factors problem here. We can't maintain high alert under those boring circumstances. Human nature is what it is. Requires engagement and attention.
I realize this, but it does not absolve them from the responsibility. That person was specifically put there with the specific reason, that is to take control in an emergency and that's how they convinced everyone that their testing of these cars on the road is safe.
Of course what you're saying has been known for decades, that's why I think the penalties for the people involved and the corporations should start being applied. They knew full well of the risks.
Who had custody of the dashcam footage, and what did they have to gain by releasing it to the public, before the investigation ?
Clearly they thought that releasing the video would take heat away from their self driving cars, and throw it straight at the texting problem.
And as the thread evolved...it worked.
- Status
