Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Probably the right call. Uber is not criminally liable but they are civilly liable but they have already taken care of that. I wonder how many millions that cost them.
And I would think they could have been found grossly negligent for the software. But I have no idea whether that would be a crime under AZ law. It should be if it is not.
I would also think the drivers criminal defense is clear. She was not driving the car...merely record keeping and supervising. She would have every reason to expect the car to sight an obvious target.
Be interesting to see what her precise duties were.
I disagree with regards to uber' responsibilities- they were in process of being banned from California's roads do to so many incidents with these vehicles & the company brought the same (known dangerous) vehicles & software into Arizona, with the help and approval of gov Duker, after basically buying his allegiance..
It seems the ruling had mostly to do with what a reasonable “person” would be able to react to a another person crossing mid-block (in a fairly high speed limit area) in a darkened stretch where one would not presume any person likely to be doing that. The software system reacted as well if not better than a typical person driving a car.
Most of us would probably have hit that women stupidly crossing the road as she did in that exact area and conditions. Not disparaging her more than that stupid move but it was one with not surprisingly deadly consequences on her part.
With what I see on the road every day, I put my trust firmly in the hands of sensors and computers. Not infallible of course but a hell of a lot better than millennials texting while blithely “piloting” 5000 lb SUVs.
I agree with this. I watched the video several times. I'm fairly certain almost anyone would have hit the woman. Crossing in the middle of the road with no crosswalk, at night. By the time she was visible it was too late to avoid hitting her. That said, a more attentive driver or the cars software probably could have slowed the car a little, not sure if it would have made a difference. For reference, the Uber was doing 40 MPH in a 45 MPH zone. Another poster mentioned Uber was civilly liable, but not criminal. Had they fought the Civil case, my guess (but have no real way of knowing) is they may have won that as well (AZ requires that a pedestrian yield the right of way when not crossing at a controlled intersection or a crosswalk), but form a PR perspective, they obviously could not fight any case.
"It's been the software identified the pedestrian as an object, but a "False positive" so it didn't slow. An article I read said the software needs to account for objects, like a plastic bag blowing in the wind so it doesn't slam on the brakes for those things. It eventually identified it as a bicycle, but way too late.
By the way, here is place where it occured. Crossing here in the day is probably a bad idea. Crossing here at night and not being able to avoid a car going 5 MPH under the speed limit seems really stupid.
I agree with this. I watched the video several times. I'm fairly certain almost anyone would have hit the woman.
This was dliscussed previously and the conclusion was most human drivers would not have hit the woman. Is this a different accident you are discussing?
This was dliscussed previously and the conclusion was most human drivers would not have hit the woman. Is this a different accident you are discussing?
Same accident. I read some investigators have said they thought it would be avoidable. Watch the video. See how close the car is before you can see the pedestrian on video. Way too late to avoid. That said, it is certainly possible the human eye would see much better than whatever video camera they had installed in the car and you would see the pedestrian sooner -- making it more avoidable. I can't say one way or the other never having been there at all, let alone the visibility conditions that existed at that time. The only evidence I personally have is the video, and based on that, it seems like no one could avoid it. The NTSB also added that the pedestrian was in dark clothing, the section or road was not directly lit by lighting and the bicycle did not have side reflectors, all that much harder to see.
And getting back to the criminal or civil liability, we should add in that there were sign for pedestrians to use the crosswalk and the pedestrian toxicology report showed both meth and marijuana.
Uber's biggest issue is the vehicle was not set to either emergency brake or alert the driver to do so in those circumstances, which seems like a huge miss.
EDIT: should add that I did not read any previous discussion of the accident on this forum, so I apologize for bringing up stuff that was already discussed. I do not mean to use this thread to discuss things that were already discussed in a previous topic, so I'll get back to the liability issues only in here. Sorry for the distraction.
It's a crime for allowing a test car on public roads endangering public safety. Uber operated recklessly by putting a car that lacks the sensors to detect objects and failure to ensure employees are operating the vehicle in case of failure.
The major of the town also deserves some blame for not understanding the risk involved putting an experimental vehicle in public.
Imagine the outcry had the uber car ran over children.
I agree with this. I watched the video several times. I'm fairly certain almost anyone would have hit the woman. Crossing in the middle of the road with no crosswalk, at night. By the time she was visible it was too late to avoid hitting her. That said, a more attentive driver or the cars software probably could have slowed the car a little, not sure if it would have made a difference. For reference, the Uber was doing 40 MPH in a 45 MPH zone. Another poster mentioned Uber was civilly liable, but not criminal. Had they fought the Civil case, my guess (but have no real way of knowing) is they may have won that as well (AZ requires that a pedestrian yield the right of way when not crossing at a controlled intersection or a crosswalk), but form a PR perspective, they obviously could not fight any case.
"It's been the software identified the pedestrian as an object, but a "False positive" so it didn't slow. An article I read said the software needs to account for objects, like a plastic bag blowing in the wind so it doesn't slam on the brakes for those things. It eventually identified it as a bicycle, but way too late.
By the way, here is place where it occured. Crossing here in the day is probably a bad idea. Crossing here at night and not being able to avoid a car going 5 MPH under the speed limit seems really stupid.
That is my problem with it. I have watched that video many times, and I'm not convinced that if I was driving that car, I would not have been able to stop. That is based on the fact that several times I have had cyclists without lights ride into the path of my car at night and I was able to avoid hitting them. So I really don't know any reason I would not have been able to avoid hitting this woman. Am I positive that I would have been able to stop in time. No, but I'm pretty damn sure that I would have reacted in time to slow down significantly.
If a pedestrian is hit by a car at 40 mph they are 90% likely to be killed.
If a pedestrian is hit by a car at 30 mph they are 50% likely to be killed.
If a pedestrian is hit by a car at 20 mph they are 10% likely to be killed.
I'm pretty confident that I would have been able to slow the car to under 20 mph. So she would have had a lot better chance, if I had been driving that car. If the Uber car had even slowed 10 mph, she would have had a 50% chance of survival. Slowing a car 10 mph is not hard. That is just a tap on the brake.
This was a case of a terrible driver, driving a car with terrible technology.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
