Uber autonomous car fatality

I'd say it's safe to think that the car must have been equipped with something like that. Since the "driver" was apparently supposed to be only a monitor, except for emergency intervention (which sadly failed in this case), the car should be equipped to switch between low and high beams without human intervention.
-

 

I have no doubt that you've touched on an important point here, but at the same time, if there is a systemic problem with human monitors getting so bored that they cease actively monitoring, then that's a situation which should already have been addressed by the employer. Perhaps they should carry two monitors per car, allowing the monitors to switch frequently enough to prevent that sort of sensory deprivation fatigue. Or perhaps the monitors just need shorter shifts.
-

 

Right, so active safety, not full auto

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

I will start out by saying that I am all too familiar with this pedestrian fatality, as my mother, a life-long pedestrian, was struck and killed by a driver late at night 23 years ago.

The police were all too eager to lay the blame at my mother's feet including. They said that my mother's decision to not cross at a cross walk was the reason she was killed. While it was true that she did cross in the middle of the road, this was because the nearest one was one mile away, and the only sidewalk was on the opposite side of the street to her apartment. So to get to a cross walk, she would either have had to walk that far on the shoulder of the road, at night, to get to the next cross walk, or a half mile in the opposite direction to her destination, for the other . This happened at 10:00 at night. The initial police report faulted this, and her choice of "dark" clothing for the accident. The county DA went as far as saying that my mother had "walked into the side of the car" (to my face).

When the facts finally came out, the story was just wee bit different:

1) My mother's "dark clothing" consisted of a white nurses uniform, white hose, white shoes and a brought red jacket. To be fair, when covered with blood these items looked dark. When I asked the DA why he didn't notice this in the accident scene photos, he told me he had not looked at them, he simply read the police report.

2) My mother died of massive head trauma, from where her head had struck the passenger-side windshield, something a bit difficult for a person "walking into the driver's side of a car in motion".

3) The driver had been drinking, but no field sobriety test, breathalyzer, or BA blood test was done. My mother, on the other hand, was whisked off to the morgue for a full autopsy, and a drug/alcohol screen (both negative).

4) The driver was traveling at an estimated 70mph in a 40moh zone, had skidded 116 feet up a 3% incline, with 92 feet of the skid against the curb.

You may wonder about the competence of the police (and the press who reported the above facts as Gospel at first) but let me add this last fact.

5) The driver was an undercover narcotics detective for the county police department. A detective sergeant, in fact.

Much was made of my mother's "negligence" along with scorn and incredulity (some of which I am seeing here in these posts) about a person WALKING some place in this day and age (1995), as if her failure to drive was a character defect (we plead poverty).

The issue dragged on for another 18 months and I will cut my recounting down to these few fact: Charges were not filed initially. Then they were. The policeman, thanks to the failure of any proper investigation, was found not guilty in a trial that lasted less time than it has taken me to type this recollection.

I tell you this, not to solicit sympathy, but to get my personal bias right out in the open on this topic. Having so done, I now give you my assessment of the facts of this case:

A) The brightest clothing in the word and six yards of reflective tape would not have mattered since the various sensors seemed to have failed to "see" her at all. There is no evidence the vehicle tried to break at any point prior to impact. The driver sure as Hell didn't see here, and wouldn't have seen a bloody brass band crossing in front of her.

B) The car was speeding, 38 in a 35.

"But, what difference does three miles make?", you ask. When a pedestrian tangles with 2 tons of steel, every mph matters. 3 miles per hour can literally mean the difference between life of death. Your chance of survival starts dropping fast for every mile per hour over 25. At 40, it become an almost certainty. There was ZERO reason for exceeding the speed limit. One mile over the limit is ILLEGAL by statute. Also, drivers have a legal obligation to SLOW down further in cases were conditions warrant, such as "poor visibility" due to weather or darkness.

C) The drivers (both human and machine) failed to exercise reasonable caution given conditions.

There seems to be a view that the victim bears the majority of, if not all, the blame. She should have known better. She's a grown woman, etc. As a person who crossed a number of dark streets at night (I was the first person in my family to drive), I can tell you that sometimes you can misjudge the speed of a car's approach, and cars can change speed and throw off your estimates quickly. A car approaching in the passing lane which you may safely clear, can screw up that determination by changing lanes (this is what happened to my Mom, based on reconstruction of the accident). I will also point out that our road design, until quite recently, has been pretty hostile to pedestrians. The bigger the road and the heavier the traffic, the less likely it is to have a sidewalk, well marked crossing areas, and crossing lights.

In the end, who was in a better position to prevent this accident? A poor homeless woman walking her $100 bike? Or a $50 billion, rules averse, corporation, with car loaded with a few hundred thousand dollars in cutting-edge tech, supervised by someone I am pretty sure is not an engineer, or even particularly well-trained?

 

The things I learned over that incident have informed my views on this, and other situations, over the last two decades. Specifically, police/prosecutors will look you in the eye and deliberately, shamelessly, lie to your face, when it comes to protecting their own actions/reputation/careers. And I am not talking about clever, well thought out lies, I am talking about standing in a massive thunderstorm and insisting it is a bright sunny day with nary a cloud in the sky kind of lies. I am talking about lies a six year old would be embarrassed to tell.

Always question the "official" account and see if it makes logical sense.

 

My comments below apply only to the U.S., not to Europe and other places outside the land where "The car is king."

Pedestrians always have the right of way? That can't be true in every case. If it was, then jaywalking wouldn't be against the law.

Modern roads are designed and built for the purpose of conveying motor vehicles. They include such things as lane markings, stop signs, and stop lights, primarily for the purpose of regulating motor vehicle traffic and making it safer for those vehicles. Generally speaking, the primary purpose of stop signs and stop lights is not to increase safety for pedestrians and bicycle riders. (There are some exceptions; I know of a few places in Kansas City, but only a few, where there is a stop light whose sole purpose is to stop traffic at a crosswalk.)

In urban areas, we put in crosswalks to, at least in theory, allow pedestrians to safely cross what is otherwise a very unsafe place to be walking. School crossing guards are another way that humans show we recognize the very real danger of pedestrians crossing the street.

I find it odd that bicycle riders are taught, when riding on public streets, to ride with the traffic. Seems to me that they would be far safer doing what pedestrians are supposed to do when walking along a road in areas with no sidewalks, which is to walk against the traffic. Bicycles are not motor vehicles, and the roads are not built to enhance their safety. As someone who used to ride a bicycle regularly, I certainly sympathize with such riders, and they are very right to express very real concerns about automobile drivers not watching out for bike riders, nor giving them enough safe space when they pass them, even when drivers do notice such riders. But at the same time, we need to recognize that roads simply are not built for bicycle riders, period. It would be nice if we had bike paths that went everywhere streets and roads do, but we don't. It isn't "fair", but then all adults should know life isn't fair. There are not enough bicycle riders to force public funds to be spent on building bike paths everywhere, and the U.S. economy does not depend on bicycle riding the way it depends on motor vehicle traffic.

The laws of men cannot override the laws of physics. Automobiles can and do travel much faster than humans and are much more massive. This means it's far harder for a motor vehicle to swerve out of its path than for a pedestrian to swerve in a different direction. As children, we are taught to "Stop, look, and listen" before crossing a street. Perhaps the law in some cases indicates that pedestrians have the right-of-way, but mothers know better! The insult "Go play in traffic, kid" recognizes what the law may in some cases ignore: The fact that pedestrians entering a street or road with traffic on it are putting themselves in significant danger.

Even if pedestrians do, in some cases, have right-of-way, we should all remember that caveat about being "right -- dead right" that we were taught in driver's education in school. Or at least, teens were taught that back in the early 1970s when I took Driver's Ed. Being in the "right" doesn't provide even a fig leaf of protection if you're walking across a road and get hit by a car!
-

 

Can you cite any legal code that specifies that? My understanding has always been that when riding on a public road, bicycle riders are supposed to keep right, as close to the curb as possible. At least, that was what I always understood, and it's what I see bicycle riders generally doing, unless they're riding in a group. When doing that, they typically ride two or three abreast in the same lane... which also wouldn't be allowed for a motor vehicle (with the possible exception of some States where "lane-splitting" is allowed by motorcycles). The law certainly doesn't treat bicycle riders the same as motorcycle riders. For example, nobody would get ticketed for riding a bicycle on the sidewalk, bicycle riders don't need a license, and at least in most areas, bicycles don't need license tags.

Now, motorcycle riders are supposed to be able to occupy a space in traffic just like an automobile, so that's different. But they also need license tags, and their operators are required to have a State motorcycle rider's license. And I rather imagine that you could get ticketed for riding a motorcycle on the sidewalk.

So, I submit that legally, bicycle riders are treated far more like pedestrians than they are treated like operators of motor vehicles.

From the standpoint of physics, bicycle riders are a lot more like pedestrians than they are like motor vehicles. That includes the ability of sensors in autonomous cars detecting them; bicycle riders often fail to be detected by cars' sensors because of their small size and lack of flat reflective surfaces, just like pedestrians.

Perhaps more to the point, riding against the flow of traffic would allow the rider to see when a car's driver failed to notice him, allowing the bike rider more time and distance to swerve out of the way of the automobile. As a former rider of a bicycle on public streets, I understand that the real danger is a car coming up behind you and not noticing you're there. If you're riding with the traffic, your chances of noticing that before the car hits you are significantly reduced.

Of course, there's no bright line there; is a moped a motor vehicle, or a bicycle? How about a motor scooter? But legally, we have to draw the line somewhere. If it was me, I'd draw the line between motorized bicycles and motor scooters. If a moped is capable of being ridden like a bicycle, without engaging the motor, then I'd classify it as a motorized bicycle.
-

 

Bikes must use a bike lane when provided. If no bike lane is provided they are a vehicle with full rights. If they get a certain number of cars behind them, usually 5, as with all other slow moving vehicles they must yield. If there is a bike lane but an object that makes it unsafe they may signal entrance to the car lane, bypass the object, and return to the bike lane.

Is usually how the laws are, local variations occur.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

This is the worst idea for bike riders. Just the worst. I cannot fathom why there's still people that hold onto the notion that this is a good idea.

 

Have you ever depended on a bicycle as your primary mode of transportation? I'm guessing the answer is "No". I did for a few months, but gave it up as too dangerous.
-

 

I do about 8,000 road miles a year.

Your idea is terribly stupid and horribly dangerous.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

Using what? A car? Motorcycle? Bicycle?
-

 

In the context of the discussion I'm confident you can figure this one out.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

See this video as to why "Jaywalking" is a thing.

Impact from being hit head on is greater than being hit from behind as the bike is moving in the direction of the flow of traffic. If a car doing 35 hits a bike from behind and the bike is traveling at 10 mph, then the impact is at 25 mph. If the bike were riding against traffic the impact would be at 45 mph. Once impact speed is 40mph or higher, fatality for the cyclists approaches 100%. A bike is considered a vehicle and must obey all laws applying to cars.

All true, but municipalities have made road design quite hostile to pedestrians. starting in the 50s and 60s sidewalks were eliminated, which meant pedestrians were relegated to the shoulder of the road. I live in a city of a 100,000 and once you get into newer developments, there is know place of pedestrians can walk safely. Sure, there are a few bus routes, but for the most part outside of major metropolitan areas, the U.S. hates mass transit, and their is this view that only losers walk.

Again, all true, but we place the lion's share of the repsonsibility on the pedestrian, then take away safe places for them to walk.