Originally Posted by RFEngineer

For those of you blaming the victim, what is really the technical difference between this situation and a bicycle traveling properly down the road in the same lane as the AV

Originally Posted by CliffordK

Waymo CEO On Uber Crash: Our Self-Driving Car Would Have Avoided Pedestrian

Hopefully they've made an effort to recreate the incident. But, this sounds like a limitation specific to Uber.

Originally Posted by Dunbar

For one thing, there’s a bicycle lane next to the two traffic lanes.

Originally Posted by CliffordK

Waymo CEO On Uber Crash: Our Self-Driving Car Would Have Avoided Pedestrian

Hopefully they've made an effort to recreate the incident. But, this sounds like a limitation specific to Uber.

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

I previously responded to another poster who also made bogus aspersions about conspiracy mongering on this subject. See Would a self driving car world make it safe for cyclists?

What I believe is that the Tempe police chief showed very poor judgement by drawing her rush to judgement and questionable conclusion from the poor quality dash cam video and the statement of the distracted driver and going on the record with it in a peculiar "exclusive" to an out of town newspaper- “it’s very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode (autonomous or human-driven) based on how she came from the shadows right into the roadway.”

Her "motive" was probably her own stupidity.

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

Do you know of any reason why the Tempe police chief would be giving this "exclusive" to a San Francisco newspaper prior to the completion of any investigation? Doesn't that seem a little odd?

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

Really, I don't see the Tempe police chief's comments/conclusions picked up by any other news organization. I also question the motives of the Tempe police chief providing his opinions on the cause of a local fatality and Uber's lack of fault/blame only to a SF reporter, with undue haste and prior even to the beginning of any credible investigation by any organization.

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

Certainly not the AV fan-bois, political prostitutes and/or media hucksters who are "all in" with the AV promoters' we can do no wrong (in fact are incapable of doing wrong), no need to require impartial regulatory oversight hype machine.

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

Yeah, just speculating here but if the Tempe police chief should be outed as less than reputable, there is always the precedent of a presidential pardon for a corrupt AZ police chief.

Originally Posted by noisebeam

I missed the new video showing what Elaine was doing before her shoes became visible in the previously release video. Please re-share.

Originally Posted by Rollfast

That does sound a BIT opportunistic. Given the gravity of the situation it's sorta in poor taste and not very reassuring.

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

Uber isn't the only AV promoter testing prototypes on public roads in AZ with little or no oversight by the state or local officials. Last week it was Uber's turn to be caught in the glare of the Media's Headlights due to the result of the inadequacies of its testing procedures and/or its AV prototypes, next week it may be Google's turn.

Originally Posted by CliffordK

As far as I can tell, the video on the web has no further resolution. I tried a frame save, and tried to adjust the brightness and contrast and got nothing.

Of course, JPG and MPG are both "lossy" formats. So the vehicle may have had substantially more data in the original uncompressed files.

However, it is unlikely that Captain Kirk teleported her into the middle of the road just before the accident. So, the most plausible explanation is that she did, in fact, cross through all 3 traffic lanes to get where she was hit.

One can see taillights of a car in the distance, but no other signs of cars near the Uber including no evidence of headlights in the adjacent lanes.

There was another video posted of a person driving in the same area at night with a webcam that was able to show substantially more visibility than the Uber video.

Originally Posted by mtb_addict

Wikipedia says the car was going 38 in 35 MPH zone.

So besides failure to see, Uber was speeding too.

Originally Posted by Maelochs

The only reason I would not is because the lady had no legal right to be where she was.

As a cheezy prosecutor I would play up the drug-addled homeless crap, but in a court of law ... I strongly doubt it would ever get to trial. The judge has to follow the law, and the law is pretty clear that pedestrians are only supposed to be on roadways in very specific fashions: In crosswalks, when traffic lights are right, and when no cars are coming. To do otherwise is to use the roadway in an unsafe fashion.

Jaywalking is a ticketable offense. She was engaged in illegal and unsafe behavior and in fact, endangered not just herself the but also the driver.

if I drove my car over a median and perpendicularly across the road and got hit, whose fault would it be?

No good lawyer would let this go to a jury. it might make it into a civil court ... but the legal argument would be the same. "Your honor, my client (Uber and its driver) was driving exactly as the situation demanded---7 mph below the speed limit in fact.

"There was no negligence whatsoever. the safety driver is there in case it looks like the Uber is about to make a mistake---but in this instance, the Uber was proceeding down its lane of travel at an appropriate speed---a lower speed, in fact than any of us would likely have been driving (at which point I would bring in radar-results of speeds sampled over several days, proving that (as would be expected) most human drivers were between 40 and 50 mph through that stretch of road)---and simply had no time to react to a person moving abruptly out of the shadows and crossing the road illegally.

"The driver has no reason to expect such behavior, because such behavior is illegal, and in fact, put my client at extreme risk. had the driver Tried to avoid the homeless, drug-addled pedestrian, she might well have lost control and injured herself---or worse.

"We are all sorry for the deceased, but the fact remains that she has No Legal Right to be there and shouldn't have been, and her negligence put both herself and my client in peril.

"Holding my client answerable for the illegal and dangerous actions of another is simply unconscionable--it would be a mockery of justice."

Anyone who has ever hit a deer or any other animal at night knows how it is. As prepared as you might be for what you expect to happen, you cannot (by definition) expect the unexpected.

If people always had to drive as though at any moment anyone could suddenly run across the roadway or swerve from one lane to another, every trip would take six times as long. We could never drive more than 20 mph, and never get withing two car-lengths of another car--and would have to use only two lanes of three-lane roads, of one lane of two-lane roads.

A good lawyer would make everyone in that jury box picture him- or herself rolling down that same stretch of road---and most of them would be doing 55, particularly at that time of night, and they'd know it---and having some homeless drug addict stumble out of the dark into their paths.

"Imagine never holding your children again---never going to their high-school games or graduations or their weddings---never holding your grandchildren---because you were jailed because some homeless drug addict darted in front of your car late at night, while crossing the road Illegally in the darkest spot possible."

You want the other end of that argument?

Originally Posted by noisebeam

I missed the new video showing what Elaine was doing before her shoes became visible in the previously release video. Please re-share.

Originally Posted by noisebeam

Having been in the area many time at night I have no idea why Elaine did not see the approaching AV. Its headlights would be visible for a long time coming. Or why when it was very obviously coming she didn't pause before crossing the lane it was in.

Originally Posted by prathmann

Except the speed limit signs there say 45 mph.

Originally Posted by CliffordK

See the video embedded in this link:
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03...nt-believe-it/

It doesn't show Elaine, but does demonstrate that she should have been clearly visible with at least a moderate quality video camera system. Early in the clip, there are several pedestrians visible wearing both light and dark clothing, but of course, under different lights.

We need a "local" to really tell us what a human driving with low beams could discern, but this doesn't appear to be a dark alley.

See the video above.

Traveling over what appears to be a bridge or overpass at the beginning of the clip is a 35 MPH speed limit sign. I don't see any signs that override that.

Originally Posted by noisebeam

I thought based on recent discussion there was new data made available as to where Elaine was and when she should have been sensed, but if the same as last week there is nothing new here.

Originally Posted by noisebeam

How can you say anyone should have been visible if it isn't even known where they were? People are posting that she was on the median and stepped out from behind a bush? How is this known?
I assure you it is a 45mph zone. It has been every time I've cycled under the freeway there including on Sat.
I thought based on recent discussion there was new data made available as to where Elaine was and when she should have been sensed, but if the same as last week there is nothing new here.

Originally Posted by CliffordK

See the video above.

Traveling over what appears to be a bridge or overpass at the beginning of the clip is a 35 MPH speed limit sign. I don't see any signs that override that.

Originally Posted by McBTC

...who suddenly emerged from the shadows and into the path of an oncoming automobile ...

Originally Posted by McBTC

I cannot tell from reading the responses whether some seem to expect more or less of a "self-driving car"...

Originally Posted by CliffordK

Google/Waymo may have received more data about the collision than has been made public, and spent some time evaluating the scenario to conclude that their car would not have killed the pedestrian. Perhaps even driving on the same street.

Originally Posted by CliffordK

I wouldn't exclude a large settlement.

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

Any financial settlement for the victim may be tempered by the case (if it is true) that she was 59 YO and homeless, and presumably with little likelihood of much future income. May not be fair but often future earning potential is often considered in such cases.

Originally Posted by noisebeam

How can you say anyone should have been visible if it isn't even known where they were? People are posting that she was on the median and stepped out from behind a bush? How is this known?

Originally Posted by njkayaker

49 years old.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/21/uber...ase-video.html

Originally Posted by njkayaker

She was hit in the right most lane. She crossed the highway from the left side. She had to cross 3 lanes to the left to get there. She didn't appear to be rushing in the video.