[RM7]

Originally Posted by MalibuBimmer

Human beings pretty much do a shit poor job of driving. Autonomous driving which saves a few lives is sufficient to install it. But that won't happen. Call it species hubris, or maybe fear of being replaced. Whatever it is, autonomy is going to have to be close to perfect.

That's really the struggle that any of us that have studied ergonomics are all too familiar with. Humans do a shitty job of pretty much everything. We look at this in Signal Detection Theory, where we quantify how many hits, misses, false positives and false negatives humans make. There are places where humans are not superseded by machines yet, but it is incredibly hard to "control" a human and get machine-like results. The errors we make are astounding, but many of us would never admit to them.

[IK6SPEED]

I increased the contrast to the max.

The first frame you can see no sign of the victim.

The next frame is the first faint sign....her white shoes, which no one could recognize just by that.

26 frames later (slightly less than 1 second) she is hit.

You can she the shadows between street lights where she also made the mistake of crossing in.

She does not appear to look at the car until the very end (nor does she try to speed up).

1 second at 39 MPH is only 57.2 Feet

[GuidoK]

Interesting analytic view of the accident (incl the footage) by EEVblog regarding the current state of technology in relation to whether it should or shouldnt have detected the pedestrian crossing the road. (for those who dont know EEVblog: its probably the leading in depth electronics/techchannel on youtube with a huge following/forum/etc)
(the crash footage is at 10:26 with synced/edited in the inboard camera with drivers reaction.)

Also some interesting in depth reactions in the comments by people who have hands on expecience in the development field of lidar etc.

The overall conclusion is that the tech in that car should have picked up the pedestrian, so this steers to a potential software glitch.

To me its unclear if a human driver would have picked this up. Judging from the video capture not, but the human eye has a greater dynamic range than pretty much any optical camera on the market and probably a far greater dynamic range than the camera used here.
Also a normal human reaction is to reduce speed when coming up to areas where visibility is poor (if the car is not on cruise control of course). But its a tricky/dangerous situation, the pedestrial is coming out of the shades.
Also interesting to me: in the footage I dont see any reaction of the car. Not even at the latest point before impact. No heavy braking, so steering correction etc. But the images from the camera are not that clear so I could be mistaken.

[eluded]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

The first frame you can see no sign of the victim.

Not with the naked eye but the car is equipped with lidar that should've caught that. No excuse. She crossed two lanes of traffic before she was hit. The felon behind the wheel was probably on their phone or whatever not looking at the road.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

Also interesting to me: in the footage I dont see any reaction of the car. Not even at the latest point before impact. No heavy braking, so steering correction etc. But the images from the camera are not that clear so I could be mistaken.

Yes, Lidar should have detected, though the coding is probably in favor of occupant at this stage.

Again, 26 frames out if 30 per second from time one can first see shoes.

9/10 of a second to impact.

Reaction time is 37 of the less than 59 feet travelled.

So human could do nothing in to prevent.

One cannot charge driver because of computers not preventing an accident that a human could not have prevented.

Tragedy, but victim did so many things wrong, she was bound to be hit by a human that night or in due time.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by eluded

Not with the naked eye but the car is equipped with lidar that should've caught that. No excuse. She crossed two lanes of traffic before she was hit. The felon behind the wheel was probably on their phone or whatever not looking at the road.

That’s pure speculation based on no evidence. Video contradicts as well. Her mouth isn’t moving.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

Again, 26 frames out if 30 per second from time one can first see shoes.

But you're judging this based on that the camera is as good as your eye.
I dont know if you have a dashcam or do dashcam testing, but the naked eye can see so much more than a camera can.
I dont know if the naked eye could have spotted the victim in time, but it sure could have spotted it earlier than when looking at dashcam footage.
But its a dangerous situation indeed.
In the footage at least I also cant see any sign of reflective clothing or reflecting sidemarkers on the bike like they have been mandatory by law since ~3 decades in a lot of european countries, to specifically prevent these type of crashes (I live in the Netherlands so there are bikes everywhere here; no sidemarkers pretty much mean you dont see them coming at night).

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

But you're judging this based on that the camera is as good as your eye.
I dont know if you have a dashcam or do dashcam testing, but the naked eye can see so much more than a camera can.
I dont know if the naked eye could have spotted the victim in time, but it sure could have spotted it earlier than when looking at dashcam footage.
But its a dangerous situation indeed.
In the footage at least I also cant see any sign of reflective clothing or reflecting sidemarkers on the bike like they have been mandatory by law since ~3 decades in a lot of european countries, to specifically prevent these type of crashes (I live in the Netherlands so there are bikes everywhere here; no sidemarkers pretty much mean you dont see them coming at night).

I posted laws above, of which victim was in clear violation of.

Even if human could have seen this twice as far away as camera (doubtful given no lights on bike and dark clothing), there still is not enough time at 57 feet per second.

And finally, as I noticed stepping through footage frame by frame, victim’s pace never changes. Slowly strolling across highway.

Notice in this shot when the car was almost on top of her, she is still in a slow stride with ball of foot firmly on pavement. She made not attempt to hurry out of way.

But yes, lidar and Radar should have been able to see as I stated in my first post. The other cameras and lidar/Radar images will be key to determining why electronics did what they did. However, not being better than a human is not a chargeable traffic violation or crime.

As she was homeless and belongings on her handlebars, obviously in violation of law with no lamp.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

As she was homeless and belongings on her handlebars, obviously in violation of law with no lamp.

The bicycle wasnt used so it wasnt in need of a lamp.
But indeed she did not yield to the car.

But its still an interesting case as the car didnt see the pedestrian. Would it have seen the pedestrian if there was a crosswalk?

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

However, not being better than a human is not a chargeable traffic violation or crime.

Maybe not, but this is a speculation. Without personally reinacting it there is no way to know if it was better or worse than a human. Without personally going to that road at the same time under the same conditions, one doesnt even know if a human could or couldnt see the pedestrian walking in the shadows. Sure these conditions are tretcherous but judging it from a dashcam holds no real connection to real world situations because the eye sees things differently than a camera. I'm sure the police also inspects this incident in situ and not from dashcam footage. I can easily make a video with a dashcam where someone is inviseable where they are in real situ easily seeable.
If I judge the footage the car didnt act at all. But logs will tell if it did or didnt.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

The bicycle wasnt used so it wasnt in need of a lamp.
But indeed she did not yield to the car.

You are assuming she was not riding the bike prior to crossing the street. But as Arizona law states and I have posted, she still violatedother Laws.

She violated Arizona 27-793, both A and C, as well as possibly B.

Originally Posted by GuidoK

But its still an interesting case as the car didnt see the pedestrian. Would it have seen the pedestrian if there was a crosswalk?


Maybe not, but this is a speculation. Without personally reinacting it there is no way to know if it was better or worse than a human. Without personally going to that road at the same time under the same conditions, one doesnt even know if a human could or couldnt see the pedestrian walking in the shadows. Sure these conditions are tretcherous but judging it from a dashcam holds no real connection to real world situations because the eye sees things differently than a camera. I'm sure the police also inspects this incident in situ and not from dashcam footage. I can easily make a video with a dashcam where someone is inviseable where they are in real situ easily seeable.
If I judge the footage the car didnt act at all. But logs will tell if it did or didnt.

Sheriff Moir and the DA have both stated that a human probably could not have avoided accident, so that’s not just speculation on my behalf.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

I can't speak to AZ laws, but here in NY and NJ pedestrians ALWAYS have the right of way. It doesn't matter how the person was dressed, if they had a bike with them, if they crossed in a crosswalk, etc.. If you're operating a motor vehicle you're responsible for not hitting pedestrians. Period.

NYC is so anti-car, they'd laugh you right into a Rikers Island jail cell if you took the position that the pedestrian was at fault for you hitting them.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

[the victim’s] mouth isnÂ’t moving.

You're just full of compassion and empathy aren't you?

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

Humans do a shitty job of pretty much everything.

Geez- I don't agree with this statement at all! I can think of countless ways machines can't come close to human ability.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

That's not the way laws work. If the driver creamed a pedestrian and you could prove something else was at work, such as the person was distracted by their phone, then you could likely prove reckless driving, but you'd have to prove that situation beyond a reasonable doubt, which is often a hard thing to prove. In this case, the driver doesn't appear to be at fault, the pedestrian does. That results in no charges against the driver.

This happens semi-regularly in my city (unfortunately). I'm also an investigator and I work with attorneys. If you are going to say there was some sort of wrong-doing on the driver/car's side of things, you gotta prove it. Killing the pedestrian does not prove it.

The human driver was reportedly looking down, and is on record stating that the first indication of the accident was when the car hit the person. This makes it clear the human safeguard failed. This failure I'd argue directly contributed to this pedestrian death.

What is the point of the mandatory human safeguard if they're not paying attention, and not responsible for failing to do their job?

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by MalibuBimmer

The interesting philosophical question is this:

How good does autonomy have to be before we accept it as an alternative to human-directed driving?

The correct answer, which is both politically and socially unacceptable, is:

Just slightly better than human-directed driving.

Actually the report I linked to above addressed this exact question. Their findings are different than your opinion. They found that consumer expectations are that autonomous vehicles are far safer than a human driver. You can even see that flawed viewpoint expressed right in this thread! The report warns that manufacturers need to set realistic expectations for autonomous driving systems to help curb lawsuits.

From the report:

An important point to note throughout the Consumer Survey is a perception that with higher levels of automation comes a reduction of accidents to the point where consumers believe there should not be any accidents:

"I'd expect the car to be safer and tested and would blame the company for any accident."

"I would want other people to know that they could potentially be seriously injured or killed in a self- driving car. It would be about public safety."

"[Accidents] Should never happen."

"The car is meant for accidents not to happen."

Caution with the industry messaging that influences of such a perception is critical, as consumer expectations will affect future acceptance and satisfaction. There are multiple industry messages establishing this concept of zero:

* National Safety Council Road to Zero

* Mercedes-Benz Mission: accident-free driving

* General Motors Goal of zero crashes, zero emissions, and zero congestions

* Volvo By 2020, no one will be killed or seriously injured in a new Volvo car or SUV

* Continental Vision Zero: zero fatalities, zero injuries, zero accidents

If consumers believe zero accidents will occur with an automated vehicle and one does happen, the fragile trust that was present will be shattered.

[och]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

That's not the way laws work. If the driver creamed a pedestrian and you could prove something else was at work, such as the person was distracted by their phone, then you could likely prove reckless driving, but you'd have to prove that situation beyond a reasonable doubt, which is often a hard thing to prove. In this case, the driver doesn't appear to be at fault, the pedestrian does. That results in no charges against the driver.

This happens semi-regularly in my city (unfortunately). I'm also an investigator and I work with attorneys. If you are going to say there was some sort of wrong-doing on the driver/car's side of things, you gotta prove it. Killing the pedestrian does not prove it.

Did you watch the video showing the driver staring down at her phone and not watching the road?

[och]

In NY the driver would be charged with negligent automotive manslaughter right away, which is a criminal felony. The victim on the other hand is only guilty of a traffic infraction, that carries an insignificant fine and is not even a misdemeanor.

[och]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

I increased the contrast to the max.

The first frame you can see no sign of the victim.

The next frame is the first faint sign....her white shoes, which no one could recognize just by that.

26 frames later (slightly less than 1 second) she is hit.

You can she the shadows between street lights where she also made the mistake of crossing in.

She does not appear to look at the car until the very end (nor does she try to speed up).

1 second at 39 MPH is only 57.2 Feet

You can see THREE street lights in that shot in the immediate proximity, and looks like there are two more right up ahead. She was crossing in a very well lit area, there were no shadow. There are no larger objects there blocking the light and casting shadows whatsoever. Uber used a terrible dashcam that doesn't have good contrast, but human eye would easily see her. You better believe they will have camera experts in court that will testify to this, and they will shot footage with better cameras on the same road as well as have experts recreate the scene of the accident and test visibility.

[RABAUKE]

Shouldn't a "self driving car" have sensors to detect objects moving into it's path rather than waiting for the object to be directly in front of it?

This tech is still new and unproven, the police chief has said the pedestrian is at fault which is often the case, but I suspect this investigation is far from over, since the driver appearently wasn't watching the road, what about the manufacturer for not having enough sensors or the programmer for not having the sufficient safeguards built into the software.

I know what the existing laws say about pedestrians etc as have been earlier posted but we're entering new territory here and I suspect that lawyers will be having a field day with this regardless of what the law says. The rules and law are black and white, until lawyers and courts start to interpret them.

Just my two cents folks.

[nick3753]

Should a self driving car be able to avoid this? Yes, but it's still in development. Should a human driver be able to avoid? Maybe. Should you cross 3 (presumably 6 counting the opposite direction) lanes of traffic at 10 at night while wearing dark clothes, pushing a bike on what appears to be a highway? No. That's the one person/thing that could have avoided this with certainty. That's who is truly at fault and paid the ultimate price for that decision. Not to mention she would certainly see the cars headlights before any car or person would see her.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by och

Did you watch the video showing the driver staring down at her phone and not watching the road?

No, I did not see a phone.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

The human driver was reportedly looking down, and is on record stating that the first indication of the accident was when the car hit the person. This makes it clear the human safeguard failed. This failure I'd argue directly contributed to this pedestrian death.

What is the point of the mandatory human safeguard if they're not paying attention, and not responsible for failing to do their job?

You have to prove that a human would have been reasonably able to prevent the accident, which is not an easy thing to do in this case. The evidence in fact shows the contrary. This makes your theory that the human contributed to the death extremely hard to prove, if not impossible. This scenario plays out regularly in my city unfortunately, with pedestrians doing the exact same thing with the exact same results.