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.
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
This is the same Yavapai County AG that is prosecuting legal medical marijuana patients for possessing cannabis concentrates that were purchased legally in a dispensary. She recently claimed that distilling extracts from cannabis was similar to making explosives with AMFO
Speaking of contributions, she got $500,000 from Insys Pharmaceuticals which markets a synthetic THC and Fentanyl lollypops, two products which are threatened by medical marijuana.
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.
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.
This is the moment, this is the checkpoint where the hype meets reality. You do not want to accept the job of 'backup driver' because you are basically taking the blame, and it doesn't pay enough. And the driverless car isn't able to do this task on its own without a driver, per the evidence of this case. The law will not protect you, per this case. Does the 'backup driver' have sufficient control to avoid dangerous situations in the first place? Are there traps they can't avoid even if they were not on their phone? Did the company sufficiently explain to the driver that they were not actually in reserve for backup duty, but that they were from the first moment the legal and primary operator of that vehicle? If not, I could understand why they were on their phone; waiting for some timely and orderly signal to pay attention and resume operation of the vehicle. If I was on the jury for that individual, I would need to know that information. This is new and unproven technology, and quite-frankly, the state allowed it. The state suddenly refers this case for prosecution of the individual?
Even if this driver wasn't watching their phone, there is a cognitive disconnect between the autopilot and the 'backup driver' that is supposed to suddenly become situationally aware in a split second. There are numerous tragedies in trains, and planes already to demonstrate this problem; and those are cases that are actually simpler from an automation perspective. Additionally, Tesla (inaptly-named ) Autopilot has its history.
Anybody's guess who would be responsible the moment that some states allow a truly driverless car. Will some hapless engineer be responsible? the person who assembled the car? The CEO? The person who hailed the car?
Maybe Google or Tesla, or xyz is a different case, but I doubt it. I suspect they will suffer from the same hype of delivering 80% of the solution and claim victory (or perpetually just 2 years away.) The last 19.999% to ensure reasonable safety and availability under all conditions may be nearly impossible and I'm not hearing much talk about it. Maybe in constrained scenarios it might be better odds, but who is responsible for those decisions?
Is lesser cases, who gets the traffic ticket when a driverless car exceeds the speed limit? (Do driverless cars pull-over if a cop car is behind them?) Will people pay for cars that refuse to speed?
> Hold up. While it's tempting to think this case is the bar we're setting. Consider the released footage of the driver for a second. [theguardian.com] Imagine any industry where you look away from a machine in motion for that long, yeah, you're at fault for your reckless behavior. Like if I was watching a show on my phone while operating a table saw, yeah, I really wouldn't have a strong case for an injury lawsuit.
You have a point, but conversely: people are really, really, really bad at vigilance tasks, where they are supposed to monitor something that almost always goes right, look for something that almost always doesn't appear, etc. Asking someone to be a vigilant backup driver for 4 hours may be a lot harder than driving for 4 hours.
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
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.
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.
I think the problem is the idiotic mentality to hire the cheapest.
Autonomous cars in Germany usually have 2 or 3 passengers, one the obvious back up driver, and the others are engineers. They keep each other awake and pay attention and usually have diagnostic screens active and a laptop connected to the car system.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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.
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
Wrong; they disabled the manufacturers auto-breaking system and replaced it with one of their lown.
This is the way I understand it as well. I believe Volvo's technology would have stopped the car in plenty of time to avoid the pedestrian. Uber's didn't even try, not even when the pedestrian was only a few feet away. Not even a blip on the radar. It is outrageous that Uber put such blatantly disfunctional technology on a public road at all.
How about "life guard" or "airline pilot." If you watch life guards, then watch for like 30 minutes or so, then switch with another guard. That's because if you stare at the same area of water for long periods of time you completely tune-out. Pilots similarly have a process where the pilot and copilot say to each other something like "scanning 1 o'clock, 2 o'clock, 3'oclock..." because otherwise staring at an empty sky totally desensitizes you. Human brains are terrible watchdogs.