Slashdot Mirror
Arizona Prosecutor Says Uber Not Criminally Liable In Fatal Self-Driving Crash (reuters.com)
Uber is not criminally liable in a March 2018 crash in Tempe, Arizona, in which one of the company's self-driving cars struck and killed a pedestrian, prosecutors said on Tuesday. "The Yavapai County Attorney said in a letter made public that there was 'no basis for criminal liability' for Uber, but that the back-up driver, Rafaela Vasquez, should be referred to the Tempe police for additional investigation," reports Reuters. From the report: Vasquez, the Uber back-up driver, could face charges of vehicular manslaughter, according to a police report in June. Vasquez has not previously commented and could not immediately be reached on Tuesday. Based on a video taken inside the car, records collected from online entertainment streaming service Hulu and other evidence, police said last year that Vasquez was looking down and streaming an episode of the television show "The Voice" on a phone until about the time of the crash. The driver looked up a half-second before hitting Elaine Herzberg, 49, who died from her injuries. Police called the incident "entirely avoidable."
Yavapai County Attorney's Office, which examined the case at the request of Maricopa County where the accident occurred, did not explain the reasoning for not finding criminal liability against Uber. Yavapai sent the case back to Maricopa, calling for further expert analysis of the video to determine what the driver should have seen that night. The National Transportation Safety Board and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are still investigating.
Yavapai County Attorney's Office, which examined the case at the request of Maricopa County where the accident occurred, did not explain the reasoning for not finding criminal liability against Uber. Yavapai sent the case back to Maricopa, calling for further expert analysis of the video to determine what the driver should have seen that night. The National Transportation Safety Board and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are still investigating.
in their new election?
Why don't you get a real job? You make Slashdot SUCK.
Republican police called the incident "entirely avoidable."
how involve can they be?
Chuck the robot car in jail and make it repay its debt to society!
A special jail for corporate entities who are criminally liable. :rolleyes: bwahahaha
Just take the settlement check and shuddup already.
If their self driving cars need a 'backup driver' what is the point of the 'self driving' bit? It seems to me these backup drivers are nothing more than patsies hired to take the heat for Uber when one of Uber's technological terrors runs somebody over.
For following the law? Not many Republicans then.
Arizona wants Uber investment dollars so they would gladly scape goat an Uber employee while giving the company a mulligan. Reminds me of the Arab Bank Supreme Court decision last year where the court dismissed a lawsuit against a foreign company that funded terrorism because the precedent would be bad for business. The legal partiality for the corporate person over the individual is becoming more and more apparent.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
Human drivers are liable for breaking traffic laws when using company-owned vehicles. This isn't new. Just because this vehicle was testing autonomous driving doesn't mean the human sitting inside is exempt from liability. She had one job while sitting in that car, and it wasn't watching videos on her phone.
Secondly, it was found that Uber isn't criminally liable; they could still be hit with a civil suit.
Big money goes around the world
Big money underground
Big money got a mighty voice
Big money make no sound
Big money pull a million strings
Big money hold the prize
Big money weave a mighty web
Big money draw the flies
Mmmmm...hogfat.
back-up driver needs to get source code and logs if they go to CRIMINAL COURT. and if they try any of the NDA / EULA BS then YOU MUST ACQUIT!
too many subcontractors to just blame uber.
I interviewed at their ATG and the stuff out of the software lead's mouth were terrifying. More people are going to die via Uber.
They think the TUV (~German NTSB) is a bunch of academics that don't know what they're talking about. I asked explicitly about HIL testing (dSpace sells computer vision testing benches).
This software shouldn't have made it off the bench. They're chasing profit and first to market and relying on the 'driver' to be both a calibration engineer and a failsafe.
The NTSB should start digging around their PA offices, IMHO.
This will ALWAYS happen with autonomous driving.
Time for Uber to pay up.
A $100 million fine sounds reasonable to me.
. . . when Republicans try to execute one.
As I recall, the police already found that the dead pedestrian was at fault. I remember because I disagreed with that finding. But I also disagree with letting the corporation off the hook while intimating that the "backup driver" might be prosecuted.
Uber's self-driving functionality worked well enough that few people would be able to remain vigilant behind the wheel for an extended period of time. It worked well enough that the driver felt comfortable entrusting her own life to the system. I'm sure prosecutors can prove all the elements of some charge beyond a reasonable doubt, but I don't think this woman should be criminally sanctioned for what is the literally-unprecedented failure of an autonomous vehicle resulting in human death.
I would make an exception if the crime was something non-stigmatizing like using a cell phone while driving, because a misdemeanor conviction should make it much easier for the victim's family to win a lawsuit against Uber without ruining the driver's life.
who will be liable if an autonomous car that's put into operation without a backup safety driver injures or kills someone?
airline pilot's errors do not have Criminal proceedings most of the time. So sticking this on a under trained backup driver with poor systems in place + really bad video that looks like was made to make uber look good is very bad.
when they become conscious, we can sue them :)
[($)]
Just say you didn't see the old lady/cyclist/kid in the road, or that you feared for your life. Gets you off Every (every?) Every time.
And it helps if you aim at the dark-skinned ones.
ooo, calm down, trumper. truth bites!
told reporters, VI ever did. It
and has instEiad Partner. And if
Although the driver definitely deserves criticism for her actions, this ruling is very convenient for Uber.
This means that they can relax significantly when it comes to the safety of the testing vehicles; if an accident happens, the courts says it's the driver's fault. Uber can sit back and blame the driver. Very handy.
The court should take into account the hazards posed to the public; if a company tests out new driving technology on public roads where the sole purpose is to disconnect the driver from the driving task, the hazards arising from the driver actually becoming disconnected should be taken into account. Especially, the automotive safety standard (ISO-26262) explicitly states that 'foreseeable misuse' MUST taken into account in the hazard analysis.
Is 'using the phone in the car while driving' a foreseeable misuse? You bet it is. We have all seen it (and done it). NHTSA has emphasized this in a recent report, saying that this is not only applicable for L3 and L4 AD systems, but even for L2 systems: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nh...
So, if the hazard analysis identifies this risk, but the company neglects to handle it in such a way that someone gets killed, shouldn't it be held liable? I think so. If the company neglects to perform a proper hazard analysis (i.e. not using established, acknowledged standards and best practice) and therefore misses hazards and therefore have someone killed, shouldn't they be held liable? I think so.
Ergo; I think Uber needs to be held responsible for this.
You programmed it, you built it, you set it up, you put it on the roads. Not your fault though.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
if they try any of the NDA / EULA BS then YOU MUST ACQUIT!
But what if Chewbacca lives on Endor?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
If you buy an autopilot car, it's because you don't want to hassle about trafic issues. If, anyway you must watch on the road and drive accordingly, the main use of an autopilot is blown away. So don't buy an autopilot car!
I wonder how this will play out down the road? Will the human always be to blame when automation fails? So the vehicle's self driving system was the primary driver at the time, the driver was simply a backup. Its like blaming the passenger when the driver crashes a car.
Did Uber consider monitoring their backup drivers? With all the snazzy tech for a self driving car they could not fathom a low paid temporary staff might try to pass the time by doing something else besides paying attention? Basic AI could alert Uber their driver not paying attention. Seems like this would be a prerequisite before letting a car loose.
A person would have at least lost their license to drive. Just saying. Again large corporation gets off scott free. I look forward to a future where millions of self-driving car passengers with no control over the car get held responsible for them just like getting held responsible for an accident in a taxi or a bus today. That's going to be awesome.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
When airline pilots make an error worth prosecuting, there is generally not enough left of them to identify, let alone prosecute.
Also there is a fucking world of difference between "made an error" and "decided to watch a TV show instead of working".
airline pilot's errors do not have Criminal proceedings most of the time.
Only because airline pilots often die due to their mistakes. And calling this a "pilot error" is disingenuous. Sorry wrong word. err. No it's absolutely fucking stupid. The person didn't make an error, they outright were not attempting to remotely do the job they were being paid to do all while operating a motor vehicle illegally.
Even if Uber was 100% liable the driver should still be charged with manslaughter for their actions.
put the trail on hold till he get's hear.
Let's have where some one loses there kid in a self driving car (with no manual control) crash and they are held criminally liable and go to prison.
In prison they learn how to be an criminal FF to them getting out and after the life of mc job's and no health care they so I had it better in lock up so they hunt the down the CEO of the self driving car corp and KILL there son SAYING NOW YOU KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO LOSE YOUR KID!!! AND I DON'T GIVE A DAM LOCK ME UP I LIKED IT.
The software developers are 100% responsible for the accident.
Put the software developers to death I say. Everytime a software developer works on something against the people, like Internet ads or tracking for example, they should be strung up like the traitors they are.
I'm pretty sure (but happy to be corrected) that individual states are responsible for administering the rules that govern whether a self-drive vehicle can be permitted on public roads. I'n not sure where that leaves access to Federally-maintained interstates, however.
But the real question here concerns "fitness to drive". Today, if you want to drive a vehicle on the road, unsupervised, you have to pass a driving test. You have to be able to demonstrate to an examiner that you can control the vehicle safely, navigate, follow road directions, conduct emergency stops, etc.
I'm not aware of any state that actually conducts driving examinations of autonomous vehicles. So how, exactly, can the public be given any assurance that the manufacturers of autonomous vehicles are safe? The answer is that states have produced their own set of requirements for autonomous vehicles. I've only read those requirements from California, but they are pretty complex - and, more importantly, there doesn't appear to be much energy or interest in rigorous enforcement.
This really feels like a loophole in regulatory oversight that is being, if not exploited, then certainly used, by manufacturers of autonomous vehicles. The whole point about having laws and regulations is to stop this sort of accountability from "vanishing down the cracks" between two or more other pieces of regulation. If the prosecutor finds that the authors of the self-drive software are not liable, then safeguards need to be put in place to limit functionality in such a way that it forces the person at the wheel of the vehicle to remain attentive and ready to intercede at a moment's notice.
The current laws for these tests require an operator. Ultimately it's their responsibility. This finding has 0 precedence to a case that occurs once an attentive driver is no longer a requirement.
I'm curious if this will end up setting precedence in the courts. Sure, a DA deciding to refer isn't a court ruling, but it's heading that way. The question then becomes, if my SDC, with no one in it, kills someone while my car is going to pick up my kid from school, am I liable? I think the answer is yes.
The old adage if you think your application is fool proof, set a fool in front of it and they will prove you wrong.
Same thing applies here.
I have driven many times in that area at night and people are idiots when it comes to crossing the street.
Drunk, not paying attention, not using cross walks. Arizona has one of the highest pedestrian deaths in the nation because of stupid people.
So if people are getting run over by humans on a consistent basis, it makes sense that a computer would run someone over as well.
This time the fool is in front of the car.
What an incredibly horrible precedent this sets. Corporations can *literally* get away with murder so long as machines do it.
~Any apparent grammatical or typographic errors are caused by defects in your display device.
airline pilot's errors do not have Criminal proceedings most of the time.
That's because most of the time they don't kill or injure people.
Same as most driver errors do not have criminal proceedings. For mistakes not including a fatality or serious injury, you're dealing with insurance, not the cops.
When people die due to pilot error, the pilot is definitely charged... Its rare because if the pilot is making an error big enough to kill a passenger, the pilot is usually killed as well.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Pilots bear SOLE responsibility for the operation of their aircraft, even under autopilot, etc. Up to and including failures that should have been caught by pre-flight inspection or following ATC instructions that are dangerous. The Pilot In Command responsible for the safety of the flight and is authorized, expected to verify the condition of their aircraft and deviate from instructions that are potentially dangerous.
The PIC is essentially GOD of that aircraft and bears all the responsibility.
~Any apparent grammatical or typographic errors are caused by defects in your display device.
that Uber disabled safety features to make the ride smoother for a Demo to their CEO and then forgot to turn them back on. It was on Ars.
I'm not sure how that effects things, but it probably should have been investigated more.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The law enforcement is using a very special net. It will catch all the little fish, while letting the big ones escape.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
A Singapore Airline pilot took off on a runway undergoing maintenance. Bulldozers and cranes were on that runway, 2 or 3 km from the starting point. Plane collided with them. They prosecuted him for being negligent.
France too had prosecuted some pilots for disobeying the safety rules.
Surprisingly, in the USA, the land of liability litigation, FAA and NTHSB has somehow managed to give immunity to the pilots, as long as they dont cover up anything. As long as every mistake, every violation of protocol is strictly documented, whether it results in an accident/incident or not, there is immunity from prosecution for those mistakes.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I also immediately thought of Solyndra and similar green slush fund companies. Of course, Solyndra never sold a product, and nobody ever tried to stop them, so you can't really say anyone killed Solyndra other than their own leadership. I don't know if they actually INTENDED to eventually sell a product, or to just keep taking tax money while repeatedly announcing plans to make solar panels "real soon now". Republicans sure had fun with Obama getting auckered into that, though.
They took the standard Kickstarter vaporware hype scam up to 11 and Obama went all in. Of course, Kaiser had given Obama almost $100,000 at that point, so I guess Oabma owed him a press conference.
Another one I thought of is Planned Parenthood. Republicans have been trying to kill that for a while.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
That's for sure.
Most Republicans see Pllanned Parenthood in one of two ways:
A. They are in the business of murdering babies. ...
B. It's not quite the same as murdering babies, let me see if I can explain the difference
If your perspective is A, Planned Parenthood is literally similar to the Nazis, and you definitely want to put a stop to it.
If your perspective is B, "not technically murdering babies, there is a subtle difference" also sounds like a pretty horrible thing!
That's what I find interesting. Some people think using a straw should be a crime, while "not *exactly* killing babies for profit" is perfectly fine. How can one be in love with government enough to think outlawing a large soda is a good idea, but when it comes to "it's slightly different from murdering babies", suddenly they are all about freedom?
You can't put a person in a car for 8 hours with literally nothing to do and expect them to be alert and vigilant. That's just not how our brains work. There's plenty of blame to go around for this woman's death, but Uber cheaping out by putting only one person in the test vehicle gets a good chunk of it. And by doing this on public roads they're putting all of us at risk, and that should be criminal.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
this backup-driver may need a $300/hr Attorney if they go to court as there is a lot of stuff in this case that can get them off but they need to flight it out and not plea bargain also take the bail bond as well you don't want to get stuck in tent city jail.
The family knew that the case would be long & costly so they took an quick settlement.
Which language was that typed in?
I'm really fed up with this...
The backup driver did nothing wrong. She was paying attention to the instrumentation, exactly as trained. The whole "watching a movie" trope is utter bullshit supported by no evidence more convincing than some random trolls here on /. and elsewhere.
The "family" didn't give a shit about her, otherwise she wouldn't have been living on the streets. They only "cared" when they thought they could get money out of the incident.
The woman crossing was in the wrong for illegally crossing, in the dark, directly in front of a car she could see coming miles down the road. The woman in the car was in the wrong for not doing her job as a tester and paying attention to the road (though I doubt ANY human could have reacted quickly enough to stop the car). Uber, surprisingly, didn't actually do anything wrong this time.
I seem to remember a few years back all companies stayed they would take liability for any accidents that happened whiletheir respective AI systems were enabled. They said this to relive tensions and get started to allow their systems on the road. I find it funny that now that one has a fatality on record they want to blame the driver which trusted their systems. If they don't change their opinion on this then I don't see why their system should be allowed on the road.
Oh get outta here with your german car superiority! You know that 3rd person is the mandatory mechanic. Mercedes and BMW both are complete fucking garbage. I started turning them away from my garage 2 years ago. Ain't worth my time. Hell if that car weren't already owned by the parent manufacturing company, it would have to haul a mandatory Loan Officer as a 4th passenger just to pay the mandatory mechanic!
Does anyone remember watching the video of this accident?
If not, you should go back and rewatch it. Here is what I remember...
The idiot pedestrian walked out in front of an oncoming car in the dark and wearing dark clothing without looking for oncoming traffic. The speed limit in the area was fast enough that a normal person would not be able to stop in time, even if they were paying attention.
The fault is the pedestrian's. They were stupid and walked in front of a moving vehicle. The driver of the vehicle would have been unable to avoid hitting the pedestrian if they tried.
Go back and watch the video and this is very obvious.
Libertas in infinitum