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

[Lathlaer]

5 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

And yet I still think Uber carries the burden for the punishment. 

I'm not saying they don't or do, I'm just remarking how the situation analysis started off with about 80% of the blame on the victim's side and 20% on Uber/driver and now it seems to be the other way around. The jaywalking part is still valid so the victim wasn't blameless (I may not remember it well enough because I was checking it when the story first broke but I don't think that jaywalkers have the right of way in Arizona) but otherwise it looks like the significant portion of blame shifted completely to the cars side.

 

Now whether Uber or the driver are more responsible is a whole different discussion here

[Tech_Dreamer]

i know it's kinda disheartening to say this , But this is just over one/severely rare issue caused by autonomous vehicle, i guarantee at that same time several hundreds of human lives were taken by careful drivers on the road around the world who are properly licensed & trained , But with that said i do think there was a delay in response from the AI assisted drive , if it was well observing person driving the car he would've honked the car to alert the oncoming whatever is  on the road, people , dogs..cats or atleast swerve rather than go through it straight while hitting the brakes harder. but this depends on the person driving it , if he's just as snoozy & distracted as watching a separate monitor away from the road

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, Tech_Dreamer said:

i know it's kinda disheartening to say this , But this is just over one/severely rare issue caused by autonomous vehicle, i guarantee at that same time several hundreds of human lives were taken by careful drivers on the road around the world who are properly licensed & trained , But with that said i do think there was a delay in response from the AI assisted drive , if it was well observing person driving the car he would've honked the car to alert the oncoming whatever is  on the road, people , dogs..cats or atleast swerve rather than go through it straight while hitting the brakes harder. but this depends on the person driving it , if he's just as snoozy & distracted as watching a separate monitor away from the road

That's why I've said before the biggest injustice here is what Uber are doing.  People are people, we react and protect ourselves using evolutionary traits. Sometimes they make sense and overtimes they are superficial and just as stupid as superstition.  The reality is this incident will set back automated vehicles in getting government approval if nothing else.   The problem here is that when you have a rogue operator like Uber turning off safety features and having drivers not paying attention then they are creating a dangerous situation and that reflects on all AI cars.   I really hope the outcome from this is banning Uber from developing AI cars and leave it to companies with a little more concern for the possible outcomes from their activities.

[Misanthrope]

Evidently not 'The voice' of reason.

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

Evidently not 'The voice' of reason.

...

 

Spoiler

I approve. 

 

[Hunter259]

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

The part she was crossing was not dark, in the other thread there was several videos posted and one commentary showing that exact spot and why the Uber dash cam footage was darker than it should have been. 

There are quite a few videos showing what the light is like at that part of the road.  Many people have gone back there since (one with smartphone camera) and shown it was actually quite light and the driver would have easily seen her.

 

Also the guys that made the software and sensors for the Volvo he was in demonstrated the car would have stopped had they had the volvo's braking system enabled.

 

People need to stop blaming the pedestrian (god knows why she did what she did, but she would still be alive if uber hadn't turned of the emergency breaking system, disabled their own Breaking system and then had a driver who was actually paying attention.

Then there is definitely more blame of the driver than for the pedestrian but still. If the road is fast and you see a car coming you either run across the road if you are already in it and deem that there is enough time to do so, turn around and wait, or not cross at all. Both can have blame but one be more in fault than the other. It isn't that black and white.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Hunter259 said:

Then there is definitely more blame of the driver than for the pedestrian but still. If the road is fast and you see a car coming you either run across the road if you are already in it and deem that there is enough time to do so, turn around and wait, or not cross at all. Both can have blame but one be more in fault than the other. It isn't that black and white.

absolutely, no one is without blame completely, I did try to explain further:

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

Had the cars emergency breaking system been enabled, had uber's breaking system been enabled or even if the driver was paying attention the car would have stopped. 

 

People make mistakes when on the road, pedestrians too, but the issue here is that Uber made two mistakes intentionally and the driver made one mistake intentionally. while the pedestrian could easily just have had a lapse of judgment, which we are all prone too and is certainly not intentional. 

As much as there is responsibility with the pedestrian. For now that fault may only be a lapse of judgment, which is not really a fault you can blame someone for.  Contrast that to the three mistakes uber and the driver made, Which cannot be argued was an accident as they were intentional decisions.

[LAwLz]

On 6/22/2018 at 8:01 PM, 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.

No, roads do not exist to cater to pedestrians first and cars second. That's what sidewalks are for.

Roads should, and are 100% "cross at your own risk" situations if you are walking or cycling out into the road, on a non-crosswalk area. Why do you even think crosswalks exist if you think all roads are "pedestrian first"?

 

If you do not understand this simple concept then I don't think you are mature enough to be in traffic.

 

I hate this kind of bullshit where people try and push away all responsibility to someone else. Roads are not your playground where you can do whatever you want. They exist for cars to drive on. Also, in cases like this it doesn't matter if you're correct (which you aren't), because it is the pedestrian that dies. That is why you should always, ALWAYS be very careful when in traffic. Because it doesn't matter if you are correct (again, which you aren't) because you will be dead.

[aezakmi]

they should put this guy behind the wheel