Slashdot Mirror


Self-Driving Uber Car Kills Arizona Woman in First Fatal Crash Involving Pedestrian (gizmodo.com)

Joe_Dragon writes: Last night a woman was struck by an autonomous Uber vehicle in Tempe, Arizona. She later died of her injuries in the hospital. The deadly collision -- reported by ABC15 and later confirmed to Gizmodo by Uber and Tempe police -- took place around 10PM at the intersection Mill Avenue and Curry Road. Autonomous vehicle developers often test drive at night, during storms, and other challenging conditions to help their vehicles learn to navigate in a variety of environments.

According to Tempe PD, the car was in autonomous mode at the time of the incident, with a vehicle operator sitting behind the wheel. A police spokesperson added in a statement that the woman's 'next of kin has not been notified yet so her name is not being released at this time. Uber is assisting and this is still an active investigation.' The woman was crossing the street outside a crosswalk when she was hit, the spokesperson said.
Update: Uber says it is suspending self-driving car tests in all North American cities after a fatal accident.

52 of 953 comments (clear)

  1. The first of many incremental tests . . . by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 3, Informative

    . . . to the existing legal system. So many have speculated what would happen when a self-driving car inevitably killed a 3rd party. Might as well get the process started so the litigation / legislation is resolved quicker and things move ahead . . .

  2. Re:More to come by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And yet, in most cases now they're orders of magnitude safer than the distracted meatbag texting away on their iPhone. Or the late-night drunk trying to make it home from the bar without getting caught. Yeah, even now I'd probably take my chances with the self-driving cars instead of humanity at the wheel, thanks.

  3. Okay Slashdot by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let's all jump to conclusions. Don't disappoint me now. We should be at the root cause with all the information within the next 5 minutes.

    1. Re:Okay Slashdot by sinij · · Score: 5, Funny

      Let's all jump to conclusions.

      I think AI is racist. If it was another AI crossing the road, it would have slowed down for it. This wasn't accident but an expression of AI-supremacists views by the driving AI.

    2. Re:Okay Slashdot by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hey, I made up my mind before I got to the end of the headline, thankyouverymuch!

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  4. More or fewer pedestrian deaths per mile? by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Self-driving cars don't need to be perfect, just better than people.

    If self-driving cars rack up fewer pedestrian deaths per mile driven than human drivers, that's the critical metric.

    --PM

  5. Come on, who would have no hit her? by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We're 50 years out from a working self-driving car.

    Thank you Mr Luddite. It's a shame that we currently live in a perfectly safe world where no pedestrians ever git hit and these darn self-driving cars come along and...

    Wait, what? Drivers hit pedestrians all the time? Especially so when they cross in the middle of the street at night in the rain?

    Remember, there WAS a human sitting behind the wheel. The fact that he didn't see here / could not react in time means she was (A) really hard to see, and (b) probably came in front of the car very suddenly.

    We are not 50 years from self-driving cars. We are *0* years from self-driving cars. They are being deployed today and the ramp-up will only continue, because even if they make mistakes it's still FEWER mistakes than people will make, on average.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Come on, who would have no hit her? by butzwonker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is a huge difference between being killed or injured by a human driver and being killed or injured by a self-driving mechanism. In the first case, the human driver is either to be blamed or not. In the second case, you or your next of kin have to deal with a large corporation that is guaranteed to have top lawyers, and they will be constantly shifting the blame.

    2. Re:Come on, who would have no hit her? by mysidia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Questionable whether the human was REALLY at the ready. They may have had surveillance fatigue, for example, because the autonomous vehicle is usually safe, and the speed with which a pedestrian made an illegal entry into the roadway did not allow enough reaction time for the human.

    3. Re:Come on, who would have no hit her? by jamesborr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Having just had the joyful experience of driving over 200 miles on snow and ice encrusted highways with no pavement visible, no lane markers visible and enough active snow to obliterate whatever post delineators (snow) are out there (typically every 400-500 feet) -- especially at night, I personally would like to believe that the current driving AI's out there will or are mastering this type of driving -- I am just somewhat doubtful of the current "state of the art". This type of driving is fairly nuanced, particularly as the snow/ice surfaces rut up and changing lanes involve a very delicate hand -- and you can forget about any aggressive maneuvers (acceleration, braking or turning), even when the vehicle is not doing what you expect or need it to do and where reacting to problems too "assuredly" just results in even bigger problems. Unfortunately, this type of driving is fairly common in the northern parts of the country for 4-5 months a year. It'd be nice to "take the winter off", but that is not realistic and people have adapted to driving in these conditions (some better then others) -- and therefore, these autonomous AI's will either have to become just as proficient, or they just won't be adopted in all climates. Either starting (or more problematically during a trip) and having the AI "announce that due to some issue outside of it's control (no lane markers, snowed over sensors, insufficient traction, etc.)", it is unable to proceed will not be acceptable (nor be safe).

    4. Re:Come on, who would have no hit her? by mysidia · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes they do, all the time. It's called involuntary manslaughter if the pedestrian dies and it's truly an accident.

      No.... Manslaughter requires a criminal act with the accused having a demonstrable criminal intent to prove the guilt -- such as DUI, recklessness, or criminal negligence such as driving distracted or texting instead of being attentive to the road. If a pedestrian dies, and it's truly an accident: in case of no wrongdoing by the driver, then the occurrence is by definition an unfortunate incident, and not a crime.

  6. Re:Jaywalking by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In many civilized countries (i.e. UK), pedestrians always have the right-of-way -- cars are expected to exercise due care not to hit someone, and "jaywalking" as a legal concept does not exist.

    But yeah, Tempe (and Phoenix sprawlopolis) in general are terribly designed for pedestrians -- you often have to walk a long distance to even get to a crosswalk, and traffic light timing can be too short to allow pedestrians to cross without running.

  7. Re:Jaywalking by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This incident makes no one a "monster" -- just like CSX and Amtrak aren't "monsters" when a pedestrian gets struck by one of their trains (which is almost universally because someone trespassed onto the right-of-way, or just plain decided to commit suicide by train). You can't bubble wrap the world.

  8. Re:More to come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is no data to support your statement. Self driving cars haven't even started driving for real yet and Musk's marketing tweets don't count as a scientific study. Testing is not the same as real driving. At this time WHEN CONDITIONS GET BAD WE DON'T LET THE AI DRIVE. Let that sink in. If AI is so much better it should be able to outperform the worse the conditions get, not the other way around.

    Your statement is like saying you are a great basketball player but only during controlled ideal practice and you have never played a real game.

  9. Re:More to come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Weather was pretty clear in Tempe last night, no wind, dust or rain to speak of.
    That particular intersection is poorly lit and has a concert venue on one corner, an office building on another and then a very dark desert park on the other two.
    The fact that the human was not able to redirect the car either seems to indicate that they were caught by surprise as well

  10. Re:Jaywalking by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 3

    I feel bad for the lady As well as the first responders who couldn't save her.

    Uber and the team -- working for a company that wants to eventually replace private and public transport with their "rented" autonomous vehicles, nope. Uber's long-term model doesn't allow for privacy, since each rental is tied to a profile, reputation, and bank account or credit card. The data will be there, to be sold to marketeers and governments.

    The "team" and "Uber" itself can go eat a week-old spoiled sausage.

  11. Re:More to come by rickb928 · · Score: 5, Informative

    the intersection of Mill ave and curry Rd in Tempe is not known to be commonly obscured by rain, snow, and at 10pm, not sunlight either.

    It is, however, a broad intersection, and the speed limit is either 40 or 50 MPH for both roads.

    It is also the site of a popular music venue, and a hip hop concert was booked then. Probably good attendance. They do serve alcoholic beverages and simple food.

    We don't know much, but I would expect this woman didn't use good judgement crossing this intersection, which requires a pedestrian to cross 6 lanes and bike lanes in every direction. It's not easy in the best of conditions, and if, God forbid, this woman was crossing without a walk sign, she was unwise. Hopefully the black boxes involved will share some info.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  12. Re:More to come by ichthus · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yeah, even now I'd probably take my chances with the self-driving cars instead of humanity at the wheel, thanks.

    You have a very low opinion of your driving ability.

    --
    sig: sauer
  13. Re:More to come by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How many times a year does your computer freeze and need to be power-cycled, versus your brain doing the same. I hope they're using three redundant computers with separately written software, sort of like fly-by-wire aircraft do. The computers "vote" -- if one is out of whack from the other two, it's taken out of the loop.

    Even more important in cars since the separation distance between them and immovable objects tends to be measured in feet versus hundreds to thousands of feet.

  14. Re:More to come by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Insightful

    An argument for not building cities where cars come first at the expense of people who want to walk or cycle. Regardless of what's driving the cars.

  15. a driver sitting ready to take over is not the sam by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    a driver sitting ready to take over is not the same as one driving in manual mode

  16. They've tasted blood! by jfdavis668 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now no one will be safe.

  17. Re: Jaywalking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can't happen? Zero fucking times. Prove me wrong with a link.

  18. Re:Jaywalking by nedlohs · · Score: 5, Informative

    (a) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway unless he has already, and under safe conditions, entered the roadway. - https://law.justia.com/codes/g...

    And of course the thousands of laws and ordinances stating that pedestrians have right of way on marked and unmarked crossings which would be pointless if pedestrians always had right of way.

  19. Re:Jaywalking by ragnar_ianal · · Score: 3, Informative

    Working in Tempe AZ I am familiar with the area of the intersection. This area is not a high volume pedestrian area like South Mill Avenue. I really can't imagine anything more than infrequent pedestrian traffic on a Sunday evening at 10 pm. You go a mile south on Mill Avenue (walk under the 202 Freeway overpass, and then cross over the Tempe Town Lake bridge and yes you will find plenty of pedestrians. But looking at the Google Maps this area is pretty much undeveloped desert park on the east and a theater venue on the west. O.T. Genasis was playing at the theater Sunday night at 7:30 so if I had to guess I would place money on the pedestrian having attended the show (bar in the theater) and may have parked in the park parking lot some distance to the east (free parking versus pay or full parking at the venue). I am just guessing, but this is a plausible informed guess. https://www.google.com/maps/pl...

  20. Re:More to come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't know about you, but I personally power-cycle my brain every day or it starts to malfunction. My computer, not even every month.

  21. Re: More to come by fluffernutter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The problem is, there can be no truly independent study because a full study would require a lot of proprietary data to be given and I doubt any self driving company would agree to that.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  22. Uber killed a BICYCLIST, not a pedestrian by McGruber · · Score: 4, Informative

    The original reporting on ABC15 Self-driving Uber car hits, kills pedestrian in Tempe actually includes a video that has the caption "Self-driving vehicle hits BICYCLIST". The video also shows a crumpled-up bicycle.

    Unfortunately, ABC15's text article says "a woman walking outside of the crosswalk was struck" and that is what the rest of the media is regurgitating as their own reporting.

    1. Re:Uber killed a BICYCLIST, not a pedestrian by sinij · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh, that makes it all better. For a moment I thought that actual human was killed. Turns out it was just a bicyclist. I hit so many on may way to work that I have a windshield washer additive to help me clean the guts off the windshield.

    2. Re:Uber killed a BICYCLIST, not a pedestrian by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Informative

      A cyclist ceases being a cyclist when they are pushing their bike. Which is what was being done according to the police chief:

      Herzberg was "pushing a bicycle laden with plastic shopping bags," according to the Chronicle's Carolyn Said, when she "abruptly walked from a center median into a lane of traffic."

      After viewing video captured by the Uber vehicle, Moir concluded that “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."

      https://arstechnica.com/cars/2...

  23. Flatly disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is a reason why we have lighted intersections, and crosswalks with bright signs calling them out to cars.

    Jaywalking is intrinsically dangerous. Physics can't be escaped. Reaction time and stopping distance mean that even under perfect circumstances a jaywalker could wind up dead (depending on the road).

    It is ridiculous to say that a jaywalker is 100% not responsible. Jaywalker is knowingly putting themselves in the path of fast-moving vehicles in a place designated for the vehicles to have the right-of-way (and, in this case at a time of low visibility!). This is a dangerous, stupid, and illegal thing to do! So, doing it puts you partially at fault.

  24. Re:Jaywalking by Highdude702 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If by "mistreat" you mean "jail and deport" and by "undocumented worker" you mean "non-us citizen here illegally" then I don't see where your argument is.. It's not right to enforce some laws but not all. Regardless of your feelings, if you want it to work another way lobby to have he law changed.

  25. Re:More to come by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 3, Informative

    And the pilot is typically paying attention during the autoland phase, ready to take over. Not sipping a latte and playing on their phone.

  26. Re:Jaywalking by Highdude702 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not true, I live in Las Vegas.. In 2011 or so we had so many idiots J-walking and getting hit by cars(multiple a week) the city made it legal to run over anybody J-walking as long as you were sober and driving legally.. The rate of people getting run over in Vegas has fell through the floor since then.

  27. Re:Jaywalking by saloomy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Did you mean criminals? FTFY

  28. Re:Jaywalking by mysidia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yup, death penalty for jaywalking. That sounds about how a fucking monster thinks.

    It's not a "penalty". It is an unavoidable consequence of some kinds of jaywalking --- for example, running off from the side into the street just ahead of a vehicle approaching that point in the road at the speed limit. It is possible there was no "obstacle" for the car to detect Until it was already too late to avoid an incident.

    There is a certain minimum sight distance required for an approaching vehicle's driver to recognize that there is a pedestrian in the road, AND react, AND take action, and then even after the breaks are being applied -- there is stopping distance.

    For example, if the vehicle is travelling 45 MPH down an arterial street, and a pedestrian jumps out 20 feet ahead of the vehicle.... it will be nearly impossible for an accident to be avoided.

  29. Re:More to come by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Informative

    Eyeballs are globs of fluid with a lense that moves to focus

    One, it's not a lense, it's a lens.
    Two, it changes shape to focus.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  30. Wait... by sycodon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...if these cars can't avoid an adult jaywalking, how can they avoid:

    Large Animals? Deer, and other wildlife that often end up as hood ornaments.

    Children? They are famous for unexpectedly running out into the street.

    Other obstacles?

    You would have thought that these considerations were first and foremost on the minds of the software folks.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  31. Re:More to come by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's not clear which part you think was "wrong." Your self-serving article brags of ~2 million real-world miles a year -- that could be done by a fleet of less than 30 cars running 8 hours a day at an average of 25 MPH. To put that in even more perspective, total miles driven in the U.S. is over 3 trillion a year. And in any event, that says nothing in particular about the distribution of those miles, times of day, environmental conditions, etc., which was OP's point.

  32. Re:More to come by mysidia · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If a human was driving the car we would still be looking at what the human driver did wrong.

    That would be an irrational "looking" or undertaking on our part, based on an illusion that the driver of the car somehow has control over the laws of physics. If you're driving 50 MPH down a road that is signed for 50 MPH not near an intersection, and some woman runs out in front of you 20 feet away...... it's not reasonable to expect you to safely achieve the stop/avoidance that physics says your human+vehicle system is not capable of.

  33. Re:More to come by barc0001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > You have a very low opinion of your driving ability.

    Nope, but I have a very low opinion of the driving ability of many people I see on the roads every time I drive somewhere. Self driving cars are probably already better than the lower 30% of licensed drivers out there and will only get better whereas that 30% will get worse as they age and let their bad habits get worse.

  34. Re:Jaywalking by saloomy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It comes from the millions of people each year who file their taxes and the IRS comes back and asks for W2s from jobs they never knew they had. The criminal is falsifying documents to collect the paycheck, and the tax liability of the person who's social was stolen has to prove it wasn't him. #nowyouknow

  35. Re:Jaywalking by guruevi · · Score: 4, Informative

    It isn't legal if you do it on purpose (that is called murder) but if you accidentally hit someone who is jaywalking, the jaywalker is responsible for the accident and may be prosecuted both criminally and civilly.

    Obviously if you are DUI or driving dangerously yourself and that caused the jaywalker's demise, then it could be considered manslaughter or you may also be prosecuted criminally and civilly, the onus could also revert back onto the driver to prove the person was not jaywalking, you can 'legally' walk across the street if it was safe to do so and you would not have to expect a car coming at 90mph around a corner.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  36. Re:Jaywalking by guruevi · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's never legal to intentionally run someone over and it has always been the pedestrian's fault if they cause an accident jaywalking. You cannot legally run anyone over, regardless of their position, you can however be indemnified for hitting a jaywalker.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  37. Re:More to come by religionofpeas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If a human was driving the car we would still be looking at what the human driver did wrong.

    No. If a human was driving the car, it wouldn't have hit the news.

  38. 5 million miles by goombah99 · · Score: 3

    Waymo says they have logged 5 million miles of testing. But what sort of testing it is really? There's these safety arresters for table saws that stop the blade harmlessly if a human finger touches it. While you can run 5 million hotdogs through it, do you really believe it works till some person actually tries it? And who's going to do that? And Is testing under controlled conditions with well maintained saws any test of neglected heavily worn saws in real shops?

    Same with car testing. If you aren't having real bicyclists darting in front of these things under bad driving conditions at lethal speeds how are you testing these things for real? Perhaps they should require car company execs to actually perform these acid tests.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  39. Re:I'm torn by Pascoea · · Score: 3, Funny

    26 comments on this article so far? You need a different hobby dude.

  40. Re:Jaywalking by Holi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Except not hitting pedestrians is kind of important. Knowing you're in a residential area and being on the lookout for kids chasing balls is important. Regardless if you had the right of way your not going to win any brownie points by saying that after you run down a kid.

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  41. Re: Jaywalking by avgjoe62 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I guess you have not filled a W4 either.

    Of course he hasn't. In Russia, it's a Ve4

    --

    How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

  42. Not surprised by hdyoung · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google self-driving cars run literally millions of miles and the worst accident they get into is one of their cars getting rear-ended by somebody else. Uber gets into the game, and 3 months later they've killed someone. Can't say I'm surprised. Google is generally a responsible company. Uber uses a "break things, move fast, skirt the laws and let someone else pick up the wreckage" business model. Expect quite a bit more of this. I'm not opposed to rapid development of new tech like this. Sometimes, accidents will happen. 100% safety isn't a physical possibility. It's just that nobody should be surprised when outfits like Uber rack up an impressive body count.

  43. Oh no: facts by Sinical · · Score: 4, Informative

    She was hit here:

    https://www.google.com/maps/@3...

    I know this because I looked at

    https://www.reuters.com/articl...

    and I know the location intimately. The speed limit here is 40. The road, Mill Avenue, going northbound is two lanes plus it is adding turn lanes to go west and east. There is a bike lane. The road has just gone over a bridge (man-made lake) and under a freeway bridge (202) -- there are no off- or on-ramps at this location. There is a parking lot under the bridge for the concert venue (SW corner: visible in the Reuter's image) plus there's a public park/beach on the north side of the lake.

    As

    https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...

    states, there was no rain.

    http://alert.fcd.maricopa.gov/...

    I haven't seen the crumpled bicycle photo, but we JUST started a bunch of "share bike" schemes in the Phoenix metro area (well, Phoenix proper has had one for while -- Tempe/Scottsdale ones are more recent): Limebike is the main one, I think (we have some that have "Ono" on them, as well). So if the bike is yellow or yellow/green, it was probably one of those. Tempe is hugely bike friendly for a US city because it is both (a) the site of ASU (b) progressive.

    The southbound lanes are 2 wide at this point, so this lady was riding a bike across ~5 lanes of traffic plus a BIG (mostly paved) median. There's a shortcut trail just RIGHT there to go east, so maybe she was aiming for that.

    A sad situation for sure. I see the Uber and Waymo vehicles all the time, so there's no lack of miles in and around that area.

  44. This will not be a legal test by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Informative

    So many have speculated what would happen when a self-driving car inevitably killed a 3rd party.

    This isn't the case you're looking for. There was a driver behind the wheel, and he (or she) was responsible for the operation of the vehicle.

    I haven't heard of any good cases regarding autonomous mining trucks like CAT 794f, but those might come first.