Big fan of autonomous cars here. The car failed. 100%
In addition, Darwin succeeded. You can't fix stupid.
Big fan of autonomous cars here. The car failed. 100%
In addition, Darwin succeeded. You can't fix stupid.
I am standing in line holding money in my hand trying to buy an autonomous car as soon as they will let me. I'll buy 5 if I can.
However, Uber is the LAST company I would consider investing in. Their ethics are abysmal. I'd rather stick a red hot poker in my eye than do business with them. They spent years developing partnerships with their subcontractor owner/drivers, and are now racing as fast as they can to stab them all in the back. It's astonishing how public and blatant they are, and how little their customers seem to care.
I wouldn't even use them if I had a choice. I'd pay twice as much to use Lyft.
Sometimes we get what we pay for.
Uber should be criminally prosecuted for this.
Their failure caused a death, and recklessly endangered everyone who uses the public roads.
Update: Looks like part of the cause of this accident is that Uber skimped on lidar sensors:
The optical system still should've seen the woman, although their range is much shorter and even if it had, the car almost certainly still would've hit her after a couple seconds of braking.
I keep repeating this; if you violate a traffic law and die as a result of it, how is that anyone else's fault but yours?
As fas as prosecuting Uber there is nothing to prosecute; until someone proves they willfully or recklessly violated the law. Additionally the safety driver didn't do their job. Uber likely had a driver read and sign a policy manual. If that driver violated any of the policies said driver may face charges of willful negligence, especially if they are considered a professional driver. If the state of Arizona required a special license they would most likely be considered a professional.
As has been stated many times in this thread it isn't likely either a human or better equipped car would have stopped in time.
As bad a people drive I still think autonomous cars are a bad idea but again this one is the pedestrians fault. It's no different than if I get drunk and crash my motorcycle into a tree, totally my fault not the manufacturers.
My reason for opposing autonomous cars is pure and simple, no software runs 100% of the time without issues. The software industry is notorious for bringing things to market before they are ready. My work involves writing contracts for software and one of the things we go round and round on is we need a guarantee that they will support their software for no less than 10 years. They try to bualk at this and often claim it's unreasonable to ask for more than 5; so think about this your autonomous car may not be supported for more than 5 years without needed updates or patches or simply will no longer work in autonomous mode. Unless there are going to be laws that require the software for these vehicles to be supported for a for at least 15 years I would not be on board with it. There are some very good software companies out there but the industry has to many players that find themselves succumbing to the pressures of an ultra competitive market.
Tom1200 said:I keep repeating this; if you violate a traffic
As fas as prosecuting Uber there is nothing to prosecute; until someone proves they willfully or recklessly violated the law.
You and I disagree. Uber willingly and recklessly violates the law as a regular part of their business plan.
Just because they covered their ass and got someone to sign something doesn't mean they are not liable
- They knowingly did not include safety items necessary for the safe operation (like lidar)
- They hired a driver not qualified to do the testing required
- They apparently required that driver to collect data that meant taking their eyes off the road
- They removed the second person (necessary for the safe operation of the vehicle) from the vehicle to save some money
- They put a vehicle on the road at night which was completely incapable of operating under the road conditions (dark)
- They owned and operated a vehicle for commercial purposes without maintaining control of the vehicle.
- Reckless endangerment
- Speeding (premeditated)
- I am unfamiliar with Az law, but it is highly unlikely that vehicle was not breaking several more laws
What they did was every bit as intentional and egregious as what VW did. They berkeleyed up, and have responsibility. Their software is incapable of doing what they claim it can.
The driver should also sue them. They broke a lot of federal OSHA regulations putting someone behind the wheel of a machine that endangered them.
SVreX said:- They apparently required that driver to collect data that meant taking their eyes off the road
- They removed the second person (necessary for the safe operation of the vehicle) from the vehicle to save some money
Legally, these are the big ones. The legal operator of the vehicle was driving distracted, period, in accordance with Uber's policies. Their policies were set this way for the purpose of saving money by flouting the law.
Uber being Uber, they'll probably try to throw the driver under the bus, but I doubt they'll entirely get away with it.
GameboyRMH said:SVreX said:- They apparently required that driver to collect data that meant taking their eyes off the road
- They removed the second person (necessary for the safe operation of the vehicle) from the vehicle to save some money
Legally, these are the big ones. The legal operator of the vehicle was driving distracted, period, in accordance with Uber's policies. Their policies were set this way for the purpose of saving money by flouting the law.
Uber being Uber, they'll probably try to throw the driver under the bus, but I doubt they'll entirely get away with it.
I agree those are the biggest ones individually.
But it's very possible manslaughter could stick with all the rest combined.
It is reasonable to believe that Uber knew the weaknesses and the liability and knowingly proceeded anyway.
Another update, Uber has settled with the victim's family out of court:
http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/29/technology/uber-fatal-crash-settlement/index.html
In reply to GameboyRMH :
That doesn't surprise me. It's in their best interest to settle prior to any type of criminal investigation (and avoid a precedent being set in a civil court) where UBER could potentially be nailed for public endangerment, criminal negligence or worse. I kind of want to know how many zeros were attached to the number though.
SVreX actually we don't disagree; Uber has been cited numerous times, here in Vegas they started operating before they were legally allowed to. I'm also well aware of their borrowing other people's IP. I also feel they take advantage of their drivers in many cases.
With all all that said there are a couple of things that we need to clarify. I'm not saying they were being extra careful all I'm saying is even if someone choose to prosecute it the wouldn't hold up.
They car was equipped with Lidar so they didn't knowingly remove this safety item; they changed the layout to a centrally mounted unit in combination with radar.
Driver not qualified;'says who, Uber will demonstrate that the driver received several weeks of training.
They have a documented zero tolerance on drivers using devices; as for collecting data, did they ask the drivers to do it while driving or only while the vehicle was not in motion? I don't know but saying apparently they did wouldn't hold up in court.
They removed the second driver because they claim the car now logs that data and the second driver was never intended to be a safety back up. I'd be willing to bet hey have the documentation to prove this. It may well have been done totally as a cost saving measure but again if they documented their position they'll win out.
They had Lidar and Lidar works at night; so they didn't out are car on the road that was incapable of operating under the road conditions.
They did not fail to control the vehicle this accident was 100% the pedestrians fault. Yes the vehicle did not operate as was claimed but that has no bearing on the case because even if it had worked this person would have likely been killed. Their attorneys would successfully argue this in court.
The only law they broke was the speed limit. They car was going 40 and I'm assuming they limit was 35.
I'm not defending Uber it's just the way things would likely shake out. If I can shoot holes in all of these arguments then a high powered attorney would wipe the floor with prosecutors. Unless there is some smoking gun evidence that comes to light there is nothing to prosecute.
The pedestrian is totally at fault, she broke what many people consider to be a minor law and sadly paid the price. In the last 6 days we've had 5 pedestrian fatalities in Las Vegas all of them were J walking. One of them stepped right in front of the car. No technology will prevent this.
So don't get me wrong I'm sure Uber were rushing this to market; this is so common when it comes to software which is why I'm opposed to autonomous cars. I'm also well ware that they are rushing this to market because despite a huge income they don't make a profit. Eliminating drivers could make them hugely profitable.
Once one company manages to get an autonomous car to market, there will be huge pressure put on software engineers to get their companies product online. Couple this with politicians, like Douchey who'll be willing to loosen up regulations for a whole host of reasons an this incident will repeat itself many times over.
Pedestrians getting themselves killed happens at a rate 20 times greater than assault weapons deaths yet no one seems to care. 50-60 people a week get killed this way but no one is outraged or wants to put a stop to it until some corporation is involved. In the 10 days since this post was started likely 75-90 pedestrians have probably been killed and the vast majority of them will have been J waking or crossing against the light. If you want to be outraged or angry with someone ask your local municipality what they're are doing to stop this. The cars are not the problem.
Tom1200 said:The pedestrian is totally at fault, she broke what many people consider to be a minor law and sadly paid the price.
Imagine that a jaywalking pedestrian is hit by a car. How much fault should be placed on the pedestrian in these three circumstances?
I believe most people and jurisdictions would assign little fault to the pedestrian in #3 and would put both the driver and the pedestrian partially at fault in #2. Many people suspect that this Uber crash looks like #2: the driving system and/or the safety driver should have seen the pedestrian and at least put on the brakes, but may not have done so.
The fact that the pedestrian was jaywalking does not automatically absolve the driver of all responsibilities. For example, the California Vehicle Code says this:
CVC 21954 (a) Every pedestrian upon a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway so near as to constitute an immediate hazard. (b) The provisions of this section shall not relieve the driver of a vehicle from the duty to exercise due care for the safety of any pedestrian upon a roadway.
The cause of death is not jaywalking. The cause of death is vehicular impact.
If the vehicle is not capable of detecting an obstacle in the road, it is unfit for the street.
Could have been a pet, or a child. What are we supposed to say, "berkeley 'em- it's their own darned fault for not being in the crosswalk"
Crosswalks are not walls. Who is to say that the Uber vehicle would not have hit her in the crosswalk ?
Once I was crossing in a crosswalk, a car came around the corner, nearly hit me and then blew his horn. I proceeded to educate him on crosswalk law.
My Mom's foster mother (the woman I knew as my grandmother) stepped off a curb just has a car was making a right hand turn. She was killed instantly, many people in our family were mad the the driver wasn't prosecuted. Part of it had to do with the driver being a wealthy attorney in a shiny new Mercedes but the reality of the situation is that while in a crosswalk the signal clearly said don't walk. It was Christmas, she had an armful of packages and a moments distraction cost her to lose her life. My aunt was two steps behind her but stopped because of the don't walk sign.
It ranked as one of the crappiest Christmases ever but it was 100% her fault, yes Mr Attorney whipped around a blind corner (New York City) because he was in a hurry and his behavior on scene was less then sympathetic but it was in no way his fault. If he'd been less aggressive perhaps he could have avoided an accident my Grandmother wouldn't have died. She was a wonderful outgoing lively Irish woman in the finest sense, she made a mistake simple as that.
Soooo I never said screw them they shouldn't have J walked; it's a tragedy that someone died but when your in the middle of the and get hit it's not the car or the drivers fault. I obviously know how devastating it is for families but it still doesn't change the cold hard facts, as much as that sucks.
SVRex I 100% agree the car most certainly should not be on the road.
iceracer yes cross are most certainly not walls. I'm in ultra paranoid mode in crosswalks, light or no light because as we all know most people on the road can't drive.
Case settled confidentially out of court.
Can I link to some other car magazine? Even if it's one of the only good ones left?
You'll need to log in to post.
