Driver of self-driving Uber involved in fatal collision was watching 'The Voice' at time of crash

[Spotty]

This is an update to the incident in Arizona a few months ago where an Uber autonomous vehicle struck and killed a pedestrian crossing the road late at night. Footage of the incident from in-car dash cam appeared to show the operator of the vehicle looking down at a phone or tablet for several seconds prior to the collision which killed the pedestrian. Shortly after, it was explained that the driver was using the device to monitor the vehicle as part of their operation and duties, however this may not be the case.

The Tempe Police Department investigating the incident has released its report on the incident, and it suggests the possibility that the driver, Rafaela Vasquez, was watching "The Voice" streamed via Hulu on the device immediately prior to the incident.
 

Quote

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Police in Tempe, Arizona said evidence showed the “safety” driver behind the wheel of a self-driving Uber was distracted and streaming a television show on her phone right up until about the time of a fatal accident in March, deeming the crash that rocked the nascent industry “entirely avoidable.”

 

Quote

A 318-page report from the Tempe Police Department, released late on Thursday in response to a public records request, said the driver, Rafaela Vasquez, repeatedly looked down and not at the road, glancing up just a half second before the car hit 49-year-old Elaine Herzberg, who was crossing the street at night.

According to the report, Vasquez could face charges of vehicle manslaughter. Police said that, based on testing, the crash was “deemed entirely avoidable” if Vasquez had been paying attention.

Police obtained records from Hulu, an online service for streaming television shows and movies, which showed Vasquez’s account was playing the television talent show “The Voice” the night of the crash for about 42 minutes, ending at 9:59 p.m., which “coincides with the approximate time of the collision,” the report says.

 

Quote

Police said a review of video from inside the car showed Vasquez was looking down during the trip, and her face “appears to react and show a smirk or laugh at various points during the times that she is looking down.” The report found that Vasquez “was distracted and looking down” for close to seven of the nearly 22 minutes prior to the collision.

If this is true then I think the driver/operator of the vehicle should be held responsible for the collision. Even though the vehicle was autonomous, it was still in testing stages and the operator was an employee testing the vehicles autonomous functions. It was their duty to remain alert and attentive to the road and to react to any failings in the system. If they were indeed watching a TV show at the time of the collision then I believe that would constitute negligent homicide/manslaughter on their part.

It would be very disappointing to think that an innocent person lost their life because someone was too busy watching "The Voice" to pay attention.

So far no charges have been laid against the driver, Vasquez, however the findings of the report have been submitted to the County Prosecutors who will make a decision whether or not to proceed with charges.

Quote

It is not clear if Vasquez will be charged, and police submitted their findings to county prosecutors, who will make the determination. The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office referred the case to the Yavapai County Attorney’s office because of a conflict and that office could not be reached late Thursday.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-selfdriving-crash/uber-driver-was-streaming-hulu-show-just-before-self-driving-car-crash-police-report-idUSKBN1JI0LB

[dizmo]

It still points to the fact the technology isn't road ready. 

[Spotty]

1 minute ago, dizmo said:

It still points to the fact the technology isn't road ready. 

True, which is why Uber was paying a person to be in the drivers seat in the event that the system fails in order to protect against such things from happening.
If these claims are true, this person didn't do their job properly, and unfortunately an innocent live was lost as a result.

 

For those who may not be familiar with the incident, here's a video of the interior and exterior dash cams of the collision.

 

[Mira Yurizaki]

I think this points to more that people become complacent too fast with regards to something they should operate. I don't think we should allow any autonomous cars to roam public roads for the average Joe until they're Level 4. Level 3 is fine for say public transportation roles because larger commercial passenger planes are there already.

 

However at the end of the day, I don't think the problem is average Joe and his subpar driving skills. I think it's there's too many of them. Find ways to get rid of reliance on personal transportation in urban areas first.

[Windows7ge]

I think more than one person was at fault here. At the speed at which the vehicle was going the person dressed in dark clothing with their bike literally comes out of nowhere. Even if the driver was paying attention it's highly likely they we're going to get hit regardless albeit at a slightly reduced speed.

 

1. The driver should have been paying attention.

2. The pedestrian should have been more aware that a vehicle was coming at high speed.

[mynameisjuan]

So much blame on one person.

 

The lady still was crossing a street without looking and not treating a car as if it will not stop. You know, things that are taught to you when you are 5. 

 

Both are to blame but more blame is the lady. Roads are made for cars, you cross at your own risk. I dont care how you spin it. 

[Spotty]

7 minutes ago, Windows7ge said:

I think more than one person was at fault here. At the speed at which the vehicle was going the person dressed in dark clothing with their bike literally comes out of nowhere.

 

5 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

 

The lady still was crossing a street without looking and not treating a car as if it will not stop. You know, things that are taught to you when you are 5. 

Yeah. The police noted this in the report they submitted to the county prosecution. So it will definitely be taken in to account when and if any charges are laid.
 

Quote

The police report faulted Herzberg for “unlawfully crossing the road at a location other than a marked crosswalk.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-selfdriving-crash/uber-cars-safety-driver-streamed-tv-show-before-fatal-crash-police-idUSKBN1JI0LB

[EPENEX]

10 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

So much blame on one person.

 

The lady still was crossing a street without looking and not treating a car as if it will not stop. You know, things that are taught to you when you are 5. 

 

Both are to blame but more blame is the lady. Roads are made for cars, you cross at your own risk. I dont care how you spin it. 

The pedestrians should have the right away, and the wrong should always 100% be on the driver unless the pedestrian is literally trying to jump infront of the car on purpose or they're doing something stupid like trying to cross a freeway at night in dark clothing. Roads shouldn't be some "cross at your own risk" situation, it should cater to having pedestrians cross it, and serve cars next. The fault is 100% on the driver that wasn't paying attention. If you're not paying attention while driving and crash into someone the fault is on you, it doesn't matter if the vehicle has driving assistance.

[mynameisjuan]

21 minutes ago, EPENEX said:

The pedestrians should have the right away, and the wrong should always 100% be on the driver unless the pedestrian is literally trying to jump infront of the car on purpose or they're doing something stupid like trying to cross a freeway at night in dark clothing. Roads shouldn't be some "cross at your own risk" situation, it should cater to having pedestrians cross it, and serve cars next. The fault is 100% on the driver that wasn't paying attention. If you're not paying attention while driving and crash into someone the fault is on you, it doesn't matter if the vehicle has driving assistance.

THATS WHAT CROSS WALKS ARE FOR which pedestrians have the right away. No, a normal road is for cars. Period. 

 

Imagine going 55mph and 100ft away a person is walking the same direction as you then immediately turns to cross. The person would be dead before you could even react. But under your logic it was the drivers fault? 

 

Roads are for cars, sidewalks next to the roads are for people, crosswalks are for people crossing. Its not a fucking hard system. You cross in a non-cross walk its your fault. 

[Mira Yurizaki]

7 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

THATS WHAT CROSS WALKS ARE FOR which pedestrians have the right away. No, a normal road is for cars. Period.

Crosswalks are not always marked. This is specifically noted in the California DMV Driver Handbook:

Quote

Most intersections have a pedestrian crosswalk whether or not lines are painted on the street. Most crosswalks are located at corners, but they can also be located in the middle of the block. Before turning a corner, watch for pedestrians about to cross the street. Pedestrians have the right-of- way in marked or unmarked crosswalks.

 

Though they do make a provision to note that:

Quote

Although pedestrians have the right-of-way, they also must abide by the rules of the road. A pedestrian should not suddenly leave a curb, or other place of safety, and cross into the path of a vehicle as this creates an immediate hazard. Furthermore, a pedestrian must not stop unnecessarily or delay traffic while in a crosswalk.

 

EDIT: Yes I realize this incident was not in California, but that doesn't mean every other state has every crosswalk marked. Their handbooks may contain similar wording.

Edited June 22, 2018 by M.Yurizaki

[dizmo]

1 hour ago, Spotty said:

True, which is why Uber was paying a person to be in the drivers seat in the event that the system fails in order to protect against such things from happening.
If these claims are true, this person didn't do their job properly, and unfortunately an innocent live was lost as a result.

In a way I see that as being flawed as well though. You're expecting the car to do what is necessary, so you're going to be a little slower to react anyway as you realize that the vehicle isn't actually going to react. Having someone in the car isn't an immediate fix.

1 hour ago, M.Yurizaki said:

I think this points to more that people become complacent too fast with regards to something they should operate. I don't think we should allow any autonomous cars to roam public roads for the average Joe until they're Level 4. Level 3 is fine for say public transportation roles because larger commercial passenger planes are there already.

 

However at the end of the day, I don't think the problem is average Joe and his subpar driving skills. I think it's there's too many of them. Find ways to get rid of reliance on personal transportation in urban areas first.

I'd say it's only good for airplanes or ships...there's a lot less to hit in those areas of travel.

 

And thus begins the development of super cities, we all group into these metropolis paradises, world populations group into small footprints, disease strikes, rapidly spreads and takes out massive amounts of the human species.

[mynameisjuan]

2 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Although pedestrians have the right-of-way, they also must abide by the rules of the road. A pedestrian should not suddenly leave a curb, or other place of safety, and cross into the path of a vehicle as this creates an immediate hazard. Furthermore, a pedestrian must not stop unnecessarily or delay traffic while in a crosswalk.

[Hunter259]

I wish we had a camera that would have more realistically shown the lighting of the situation but assuming that the lighting is identical or close to how it is shown in the video I don't know if pretty much anyone could react quick enough to not hit her. She decided to cross a pretty fast road without speeding up and did it without any light near her. The driver should still get penalized for distracted driving as these systems still urge you to pay attention to the road but she really was testing Darwin.

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 minute ago, dizmo said:

I'd say it's only good for airplanes or ships...there's a lot less to hit in those areas of travel.

Which is why I think level 3 autonomy, while I won't claim is impossible, may be impractical due to the number of variables and our current technology. We may be get there, but I don't think it'll be until we're all old and can't drive anyway (actually that'll be amazing timing)

Quote

And thus begins the development of super cities, we all group into these metropolis paradises, world populations group into small footprints, disease strikes, rapidly spreads and takes out massive amounts of the human species.

Well, every time I look at a megacity that runs like clockwork, I look at Tokyo. Japan has mass transit down to a T.

[mynameisjuan]

7 minutes ago, Hunter259 said:

I wish we had a camera that would have more realistically shown the lighting of the situation but assuming that the lighting is identical or close to how it is shown in the video I don't know if pretty much anyone could react quick enough to not hit her. She decided to cross a pretty fast road without speeding up and did it without any light near her. The driver should still get penalized for distracted driving as these systems still urge you to pay attention to the road but she really was testing Darwin.

I wish people would have seen the video before the article hit the news without it. It shows the lady crossing with no regard to traffic. Even with bright headlights in a dark zone it was easy to tell a car was coming. If fact it almost looked like she was looking away from traffic. 

 

People keep claiming victim against technology when common sense wasnt there in the first place.

[Bananasplit_00]

Didn't the car also detect the lady on the bike early enough to brake tho? I remember reading that in a previous post about this and that the emergency breaking feature was disabled because it was making the ride jerky or something? I still put the person literally hired to break/avoid accidents the most but the bike lady should also not cross the road like that in the dark

[asus killer]

how unexpected was this really?

The car drives itself, have some money to sit there and just watch it. Is this any different from watch this warehouse at night for me, and i will give you some money?

 

better to just let the tech do it's thing, remember that the car saw the pedestrian  seconds before the crash but it had no authorization to break on it's own.

[Guest]

On 6/23/2018 at 5:16 AM, dizmo said:

It still points to the fact the technology isn't road ready. 

Some people forget at these aren't really self-driving cars. They are to assist the driver, you should still have your eyes on the road - especially if you are testing the car! They don't get paid to watch the voice. It's their job, if they can't do it, then they should not be there. Hopefully, if they haven't been, they should be fired and their licence taken away. 

It's pretty common sense to keep your eyes on the road while driving and to spot pedestrians who may cross. 

[2FA]

I think the biggest take away is that these Uber cars didn't have an automatic emergency braking system and the built-in emergency brake system of the Volvos was disabled by Uber.

[mynameisjuan]

17 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

It's pretty common sense to keep your eyes on the road while driving

Also common sense to look both ways before crossing

[NTDaws]

3 hours ago, dizmo said:

It still points to the fact the technology isn't road ready. 

At this point I don't think road technology will ever be ready. It's technology, it doesn't have a mind of its own.

[Froody129]

21 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

Some people forget at these aren't really self-driving cars. They are to assist the driver, you should still have your eyes on the road - especially if you are testing the car! They don't get paid to watch the voice. It's their job, if they can't do it, then they should not be there. Hopefully, if they haven't been, they should be fired and their licence taken away. 

It's pretty common sense to keep your eyes on the road while driving and to spot pedestrians who may cross. 

In theory yes, but the reality is that when you don't have to pay full attention to the road you're not going to be able to react to things on the road. It's like sitting passenger seat for a long road trip but in an urban setting. The temptation is strong to just not look because the car will handle it.

 

The other thing is this is obviously not an isolated incident where you just fire the person. If she's watching a TV show while driving the car I assure you it was not the first time she's done it. Her doing it also points to other employees doing it

[Froody129]

Just now, Being Delirious said:

At this point I don't think road technology will ever be ready. It's technology, it doesn't have a mind of its own.

Imo it'll only work if all vehicles on the road are computer controlled. It would completely remove the need for traffic lights and allow for much more efficient driving. I'd guess 99.9% of the time a crash is caused by human error, which can be removed 

[Guest]

On 6/23/2018 at 8:21 AM, Froody129 said:

In theory yes, but the reality is that when you don't have to pay full attention to the road you're not going to be able to react to things on the road. It's like sitting passenger seat for a long road trip but in an urban setting. The temptation is strong to just not look because the car will handle it.

 

The other thing is this is obviously not an isolated incident where you just fire the person. If she's watching a TV show while driving the car I assure you it was not the first time she's done it. Her doing it also points to other employees doing it

It's the job, either you can do it or you can't. People who find excuses shouldn't be in that position. 

[dizmo]

28 minutes ago, Being Delirious said:

At this point I don't think road technology will ever be ready. It's technology, it doesn't have a mind of its own.

When I was a kid, I never imagined I'd have a PC, high end point and shoot camera, and video camera in a very slim package, in my pocket.

The internet didn't exist.

And yet, look where we are now.

 

To say something will never be is to have already given up. All it takes is will.