• UberPeople.NET - Independent community of rideshare drivers. It's FREE to be a person and enjoy all the benefits of membership. JOIN US! CLICK HERE

Autonomous Fatality - Judge for Yourself

Watch the video below. If it was you driving your own car, could you have avoided this?

  • Yes. I would have seen her and swerved

    Votes: 17 58.6%
  • No.

    Votes: 12 41.4%

  • Total voters
    29

Yam Digger

Well-Known Member
http://nationalpost.com/news/world/crash-marks-1st-death-involving-fully-autonomous-vehicle

Click the above link for a clip of the fatal AV accident. In the first part, you will see that the woman DIDN'T just jump out in the road. She was on it long enough for the car sense her presence and take evasive action. The fact that is was night shouldn't have made any difference to an AV. Also notice that it wasn't raining or snowing and that the roads were clean.

Secondly, look at the backup driver. HE WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION TO THE ROAD IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE ACCIDENT.

Now let us say, hypothetically, that this accident occurred with no backup driver at all...the end goal of AV research...and the car is found at fault. Who is the family going to sue? Normally, it would be the driver of the car. But in the case of a driverless AV, you can only successfully sue the owner if you can prove neglected maintenance caused the accident. Otherwise, the family will be suing the manufacturer, and whatever third-party company wrote the autonomous software. Now multiply many times over in a single nation. Can we all say "Bankruptcy Court?"

Ignore the article itself and look at the video.
 

Gone_in_60_seconds

Well-Known Member
http://nationalpost.com/news/world/crash-marks-1st-death-involving-fully-autonomous-vehicle

Click the above link for a clip of the fatal AV accident. In the first part, you will see that the woman DIDN'T just jump out in the road. She was on it long enough for the car sense her presence and take evasive action. The fact that is was night shouldn't have made any difference to an AV. Also notice that it wasn't raining or snowing and that the roads were clean.

Secondly, look at the backup driver. HE WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION TO THE ROAD IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE ACCIDENT.

Now let us say, hypothetically, that this accident occurred with no backup driver at all...the end goal of AV research...and the car is found at fault. Who is the family going to sue? Normally, it would be the driver of the car. But in the case of a driverless AV, you can only successfully sue the owner if you can prove neglected maintenance caused the accident. Otherwise, the family will be suing the manufacturer, and whatever third-party company wrote the autonomous software. Now multiply many times over in a single nation. Can we all say "Bankruptcy Court?"

Ignore the article itself and look at the video.
I thought the passive driver was a woman? And she definitely was NOT paying attention. There was absolutely no attempt to hit the brakes or swerve away from the pedestrians
 

AlexMax

Member
IMHO:
what a video camera sees,
what a human eye sees,
what a computer vision 'sees',
are 3 completely different stories.
I can not judge will I be able to see this pedestrian through my naked eyes (by watching what camera picks from the dark).
 

i_k

Well-Known Member
Being honest I don’t think I could have avoided her if I was driving. Coming out from an area that wasn’t lit she didn’t appear until the last split second. The fact that there was no crosswalk there and being in the dark I wouldn’t expect anyone to walk into traffic in front of a speeding car. AV should have detected her but I think the driver couldn’t have avoided her even if he was paying attention..
 

Skorpio

Well-Known Member
Another guy in this forum..
Pointed out that the area where she was struck..
Is actually brighter at night..
110% you could have seen her crossing..

Uber dashcam is either cheap or someone made it darker..
The driver on the other hand.. never seen her crossing..

The question is..
Why the car didnt detect her..
 

observer

Well-Known Member
Moderator
http://nationalpost.com/news/world/crash-marks-1st-death-involving-fully-autonomous-vehicle

Click the above link for a clip of the fatal AV accident. In the first part, you will see that the woman DIDN'T just jump out in the road. She was on it long enough for the car sense her presence and take evasive action. The fact that is was night shouldn't have made any difference to an AV. Also notice that it wasn't raining or snowing and that the roads were clean.

Secondly, look at the backup driver. HE WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION TO THE ROAD IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE ACCIDENT.

Now let us say, hypothetically, that this accident occurred with no backup driver at all...the end goal of AV research...and the car is found at fault. Who is the family going to sue? Normally, it would be the driver of the car. But in the case of a driverless AV, you can only successfully sue the owner if you can prove neglected maintenance caused the accident. Otherwise, the family will be suing the manufacturer, and whatever third-party company wrote the autonomous software. Now multiply many times over in a single nation. Can we all say "Bankruptcy Court?"

Ignore the article itself and look at the video.
If the software was added after the vehicle left the factory, I would think the manufacturer would be off the hook.

If I was a manufacturer and I was knowingly selling vehicles to Uber or any other self driving company, I would make sure all liability for accidents would fall on the self driving company. If the company refused to accept liability, I would refuse to sell them cars and all warranties would be voided upon vehicle being altered.
 

Andy911

Well-Known Member
Being honest I don’t think I could have avoided her if I was driving. Coming out from an area that wasn’t lit she didn’t appear until the last split second. The fact that there was no crosswalk there and being in the dark I wouldn’t expect anyone to walk into traffic in front of a speeding car. AV should have detected her but I think the driver couldn’t have avoided her even if he was paying attention..
I can't say I would have been able to avoid hitting her with my car, video on that website is garbage, but maybe brake enough to hit her at a lower speed so maybe she would have a better chance of surviving.

Victim:
Her bicycle did not have reflectors.
She crossed in the middle of the road.
Why did she not stop,or even try to speed her walking to get out of the way?Did the vehicle break a little intending to brake?
Was she intoxicated,on drugs?

Diver:
He is probably just a computer engineer,there to test and see how the systems and programming are functioning;He is not at fault.

AV:
I do not think it is in its early stages of testing,so most of the bigger bugs and troubleshooting should have been done by now.
Vehicles speed should have been limited to under 40 km/hr.
If that video on the website is the original quality of the video recorder in the vehicle,then there is a problem,looks worse that my 720p dashcam i bought
from a chinese website.
 

Yam Digger

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #9
I thought the passive driver was a woman? And she definitely was NOT paying attention. There was absolutely no attempt to hit the brakes or swerve away from the pedestrians
You’re right. I later realized it’s a woman....and a rather ugly one at that. They also found out she has a criminal record for bank robbery. So much for Uber’s background checks.
 

Uberchampion

Well-Known Member
There are some new videos on Youtube debunking the video that Uber put out.

Here is video of the same spot where the accident happened. As you will see, the area is very well lit. I believe most drivers would have seen the cyclist. As mentioned earlier there is no way that Uber would spend billions on developing the car and buy such a low quality dashcam so my thoughts are they doctored the footage they released. Also, have any of you seen headlights on a car with such a limited field of coverage? Something fishy is going on here.


Read the below article.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/police-chief-said-uber-victim-came-from-the-shadows-dont-believe-it/
 
Last edited:

Raaz

Member
I can tell you for certain that most sober drivers would have avoided that accident. There are many reports on the internet that that area is well lit and a human eye would have spotted the woman well before.
When will ppl realize that AV is doomed for failure, they will never be able to replace human intelligence. There are applications of AI and it can be put to good use, unfortunately driving in traffic, is not one of them.
 

Uberchampion

Well-Known Member
Being honest I don’t think I could have avoided her if I was driving. Coming out from an area that wasn’t lit she didn’t appear until the last split second. The fact that there was no crosswalk there and being in the dark I wouldn’t expect anyone to walk into traffic in front of a speeding car. AV should have detected her but I think the driver couldn’t have avoided her even if he was paying attention..
i_k the area is well lit. Ubers dashcams are very shitty or the video has been doctored.
 

i_k

Well-Known Member
i_k the area is well lit. Ubers dashcams are very shitty or the video has been doctored.
Yeah after watching the video you posted it’s easy to notice the lack of lighting from the dash cam, and after seeing how well lit the area actually is I change my mind, the driver would have noticed her if he was paying attention..
 

Yam Digger

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #16
i_k the area is well lit. Ubers dashcams are very shitty or the video has been doctored.
Uber is so unethical, I’ll go with them modifying their video to make it look like it’s not their fault.

By the way, I notice that the usual AV boosters of the forum are deafeningly silent.
 

JohnSavage

Well-Known Member
Here is the most thorough analysis you will find of the accident.

http://ideas.4brad.com/it-certainly-looks-bad-uber

A summation would be the Uber had deactivated the more advanced systems that would have detected this pedestrian in the dark. The vehicle was traveling at the fastest speed that could possibly be considered safe. The pedestrian was crossing dangerously and illegally.

Uber may be at fault because while you can justify testing the system with some sensors disabled, the safety driver MUST be paying full attention if that is the case (seems to be distracted by phone). Also, the human eye would detect pedestrian well before they become visible on dashcam. Any breaking may have saved pedestrian life. At the speed traveling vehicle can come to a complete stop in 1.5 seconds.
 

Doccy

Well-Known Member
After seeing the second video of the dude driving on that same street, I’d think she would have seen the person.

BUT,

Let’s talk about the pedestrian (RIP) who walked infront of the car hoping that the driver would stop for him.
This happens all the time. I see it happening everywhere. Pedestrians and cyclists nonchalantly walk (jay walk) infront of moving cars, assuming that they’re going to stop for them.

Moral of the story is

DO NOT PUT YOUR SAFTEY IN OTHER PEOPLES HANDS
 

i_k

Well-Known Member
I notice that the usual AV boosters of the forum are deafeningly silent.
I’m still pro-AV despite this incident. Every day there are people dying from car accidents and it’s heartbreaking to hear especially when there are children involved. We can’t let accidents caused by human error continue without looking for a way to improve the way we commute. AV’s are the future and they won’t officially be rolled out until they’re proven to be safe. It’s still early, companies are still testing and while some are more ahead of the game than others we can expect problems from those still in their early stages of development.

The trust we have for a robot driving us around is almost nil, but the concept is new to us so it’s reasonable to have a certain level of fear. As the technology improves and the errors get rectified there will be no turning back. I’m confident AV’s will be safer than humans, maybe not in the near future, but eventually..
 

tohunt4me

Well-Known Member
http://nationalpost.com/news/world/crash-marks-1st-death-involving-fully-autonomous-vehicle

Click the above link for a clip of the fatal AV accident. In the first part, you will see that the woman DIDN'T just jump out in the road. She was on it long enough for the car sense her presence and take evasive action. The fact that is was night shouldn't have made any difference to an AV. Also notice that it wasn't raining or snowing and that the roads were clean.

Secondly, look at the backup driver. HE WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION TO THE ROAD IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE ACCIDENT.

Now let us say, hypothetically, that this accident occurred with no backup driver at all...the end goal of AV research...and the car is found at fault. Who is the family going to sue? Normally, it would be the driver of the car. But in the case of a driverless AV, you can only successfully sue the owner if you can prove neglected maintenance caused the accident. Otherwise, the family will be suing the manufacturer, and whatever third-party company wrote the autonomous software. Now multiply many times over in a single nation. Can we all say "Bankruptcy Court?"

Ignore the article itself and look at the video.
It never should have been on public road yet.
Who even allowed this ?
Who analyzed the data to determine allowing this ?
There is a Reason California Enforced Suspension of Public Testing.

I’m still pro-AV despite this incident. Every day there are people dying from car accidents and it’s heartbreaking to hear especially when there are children involved. We can’t let accidents caused by human error continue without looking for a way to improve the way we commute. AV’s are the future and they won’t officially be rolled out until they’re proven to be safe. It’s still early, companies are still testing and while some are more ahead of the game than others we can expect problems from those still in their early stages of development.

The trust we have for a robot driving us around is almost nil, but the concept is new to us so it’s reasonable to have a certain level of fear. As the technology improves and the errors get rectified there will be no turning back. I’m confident AV’s will be safer than humans, maybe not in the near future, but eventually..
Yet
Lessons must be learned .
About Rampant release of unfathomed technology and its ramifications upon society.

I CiteNuclear Arms Race for comparison of diffusion of dangerous technology upon the world.

There is Always Consequence.

As you stated" No Turning Back".

But
There is " LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP".
 

Attachments

  • Like
Reactions: i_k
Top