I hope you're right, but that's only part of the solution. Everybody in that reporting chain should be looking down the barrel of consequences. Proportional to their level of control, but harsh to be sure. Implementors need to have it made very clear to them as well that no, just-following-orders isn't enough.
I have fired clients for doing reckless and stupid things orders of magnitude reckless and stupid than what Uber has done here and I would hope that I would walk the hell out were I confronted with "we disabled the brake for a smoother ride and then disabled the alarms because they were too noisy". Do thou likewise, yeah?
I think this case is a bit too hard to prove much more than negligence, but establishing criminal liability would send the right message that you gotta do this right before unleashing it on public streets.
I don't think so. The police have said that 1) the pedestrian was at least partially at-fault for not crossing at a crosswalk and 2) given the circumstances, the same outcome would have occurred with a human driver.
>2) given the circumstances, the same outcome would have occurred with a human driver.
The police are in no position at assert that, nor do they know whether or not Uber is guilty of negligence. Police do not bring charges and they're not running the investigation.
If you’re gonna test something like this on public roads, there need to be better engineering failsafes in place.
The place for the product folks to override safety features is the test track. If the feature didn’t work, they should have pulled the drivers because they were not trained to properly operate the machine.
If you give the “driver” training on a car with an autonomous braking system, then give them a car without it, that’s not on the driver. Someone was negligent with safety in regards to the entire program.
I’m not saying anyone needs to go to jail over this, but there do need to be charges IMO. Personal liability needs to be involved in this or executives will continue to pressure employees to do dangerous things.
Do you have a link or quote for 2)? I was under impression that while the video looks dark, it wasn't quite so dark in reality and human driver would have fared better (if they were driving instead of checking console every 5 seconds, that is).
> "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," Moir told the San Francisco Chronicle after viewing the footage.
The dashcam footage has poor dynamic range and is not representative of what a human driver would have seen. (This has been pointed out repeatedly in previous discussions here on HN — I'm saying that not to chide you, but just to establish it as a fact.)
I'm not convinced that (2) is literally true — that the pedestrian would have been likely to be killed in this particular instance — but: she was strolling nonchalantly across a four-lane roadway with a 45mph speed limit, in the dark, with dark clothing on, and paying not the slightest attention to oncoming traffic. I'm sure that if she did that regularly, sooner or later she would have had at least a close call.
This was discussed extensively here after the event happened. It's not pitch black around there and a number of people have recorded videos driving at night through that exact area and the entire road is well lit enough to see a person with a bike on the road. The low-fidelity CCD video Uber posted in the immediate aftermath is not representative of human vision or (apparently) the sensors that Uber had on the vehicle.
Right, and I said exactly the same thing elsewhere [0], but I still think she was taking a big chance by being so oblivious. A 45mph speed limit means some people will be doing 55. Stroll casually across a roadway like that enough times, and you will eventually force a driver to swerve around you at high speed or make a panic stop or at the very least blast you with the horn.
I can't imagine doing what she did — even thoroughly stoned, as she may have been (she tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana), I would have more sense of self-preservation than that.
"the pedestrian was at least partially at-fault for not crossing at a crosswalk"
That should be irrelevant. Even if the pedestrian is jay-walking, it's still not legal to hit them. Further, having solid evidence that the car detected the pedestrian and did nothing to avoid her mitigates the pedestrian's responsibility, no?
Also, the "center median
containing trees, shrubs, and brick landscaping
in the shape of an X" sure looks like it should have some crosswalks, from the aerial photograph. What's it look like from the ground?
Human drivers are also charged when they kill people, so (2) doesn't seem to have any weight.
And partially-at-fault, on one hand, means there's fault on the driver side too, and on the other hand, is a judge's decision to make, not the police, no?
