How Safe Are Self-Driving Cars After the First Fatal Accident?

[Borg]

I think that people are forgetting the first few pages where it seems pretty clear that the pedestrian stepped into the path of the car at night, nowhere near a crosswalk and at the last second in the darkest section of the road - such that it would have been difficult to avoid even if the driver had been paying full attention. If this had happened to me, I have a dash cam that would have shown it as unavoidable just as the forward-looking camera did on the Uber car. But, because there was an internal camera pointed at the driver showing that he wasn't paying attention, suddenly he's guilty of manslaughter? Yes, he should have been paying attention but I don't think that it would have made any difference because it's doubtful that he could have reacted fast enough anyway.

About an hour ago, the Tempe police department released a video of the accident:

Correction on the last second part. Based on Om's video link, she was crossing from the left but was in the section between the lights. I still think that this is far more the fault of the pedestrian and would be a coin flip as to whether it would have been avoidable or not.

 

[russ_watters]

presumably the driver assumed that is because the car can drive itself and not hit things on the road. which turned out to not be the case.

I would hope the driver was instructed that the collision avoidance system had been turned off, but if not that would shift culpability to Uber management.

 

[russ_watters]

I think that people are forgetting the first few pages where it seems pretty clear that the pedestrian stepped into the path of the car at night, nowhere near a crosswalk and at the last second in the darkest section of the road - such that it would have been difficult to avoid even if the driver had been paying full attention. If this had happened to me, I have a dash cam that would have shown it as unavoidable just as the forward-looking camera did on the Uber car. But, because there was an internal camera pointed at the driver showing that he wasn't paying attention, suddenly he's guilty of manslaughter?

This thread is getting old and long and stale, but we've discussed before that according to the preliminary ntsb report, the car detected and tracked the pedestrian for six seconds before impact, meaning the pedestrian was in the clear, and the driver would have had an unobstructed view for about 330 feet - a football field. The lighting is difficult to prove, but a number of people shot stills and video to debunk the idea that it was very dark. That is tough to know though because of varying camera settings. But sure, if it can be demonstrated - and it should be easy for police or the ntsb to do so - that darkness precluded seeing the pedestrian until too late, that would reduce the driver's culpability.

I'm not sure if the pedestrian's jaywalking matters legally or not. There are a number of sites that discuss the civil side (yes a jaywalker can successfully sue a driver who hits them):
https://www.injuryattorneyofdallas.com/jaywalker-hit-car-whos-fault/

 

[Vanadium 50]

Sure, but unless the law was rewritten (doubt it), the person with the steering wheel in front of them is a "driver" regardless of what the company tells them their job is.

I looked it up. The legal term is "operator" and the legal definition is . "Operator" means a person who drives a motor vehicle on a highway, who is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle on a highway or who is exercising control over or steering a vehicle being towed by a motor vehicle.

I think the phrase "actual physical control" is subject to lawyering, and I think Uber should be terrified of the question. If the answer is "the check driver is in actual physical control", then they need to explain why they added job tasks that would require her attention to be elsewhere. This makes them negligent. If the answer is "no, the check driver is not in physical control", who or what is? And the only answer to that is "the car's programming", which is again, Uber's responsibility.

 

[Vanadium 50]

As a PS, I expect a lot of legal wrangling over the difference between "physical control" and just plain old "control".

 

[nitsuj]

As a PS, I expect a lot of legal wrangling over the difference between "physical control" and just plain old "control".

Wouldn't the law certainly say the person in the drivers seat was driver? What's ambiguous is if employee, employer or person who set up the test with anti collision disabled is to blame.

 

[nitsuj]

Yes, he should have been paying attention but I don't think that it would have made any difference because it's doubtful that he could have reacted fast enough anyway.

How can something that didn't happen be used as justification for something that did?

Peeps can be charged for intent alone. I see the logic in your comment the same as saying "Yes they should not have been conspiring a terrorist attack, but they didn't succeed so it doesn't matter anyway."

 

[mfb]

Wouldn't the law certainly say the person in the drivers seat was driver? What's ambiguous is if employee, employer or person who set up the test with anti collision disabled is to blame.

Where is the driver seat in the law (there are cars which have them on the other side) and who thought about defining that explicitly at a time driverless cars didn't exist?

How can something that didn't happen be used as justification for something that did?

"Failing to do X" is typically not illegal if doing X wouldn't have made a difference. If you don't give CPR to a person who is clearly dead it is okay - giving CPR wouldn't make a difference.

 

[nsaspook]

How can something that didn't happen be used as justification for something that did?

Peeps can be charged for intent alone. I see the logic in your comment the same as saying "Yes they should not have been conspiring a terrorist attack, but they didn't succeed so it doesn't matter anyway."

I think the slight difference here is the person hit was breaking a traffic law, jaywalking at a location the city explicitly put a "Do No Cross" sign. I think that's usually a mitigating factor in the blame calculation even if the driver was distracted but otherwise a reasonable (not impaired) driver. An offsetting 'foul' type of situation for a criminal charge or civil liability due to Contributory or Comparative Negligence.

It's not an excuse for UBER disconnecting the emergency auto-braking system because of operational 'false alarm' problems.

 

[nitsuj]

Where is the driver seat in the law (there are cars which have them on the other side) and who thought about defining that explicitly at a time driverless cars didn't exist?"Failing to do X" is typically not illegal if doing X wouldn't have made a difference. If you don't give CPR to a person who is clearly dead it is okay - giving CPR wouldn't make a difference.

It doesn't have to be in the law to discuss how the law interprets itself. I don't find calling the person in the drivers seat the driver difficult. Regardless of what technology was assisting the person in driving; a conscious task in sum. To your point the law isn't written for driverless cars. I find it silly to debate who was the driver in this situation.

The person was breaking the law, only reason it's against the law is because risk of injury and damage. It's okay for me not to give cpr due to not knowing how to give cpr.

ignoring duty of care is against the law. not paying attention while driving a car is ignoring duty of care; because the activity can result in injury / damage.

I'm starting to think uber assumed duty of care in operating the car as a good way to word it. If they did actually gives instructions that moreless mean the same.

 

[mfb]

I find it silly to debate who was the driver in this situation.

The courts don't find it silly exactly because the laws can be ambiguous - they were not written with such a case in mind.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Wouldn't the law certainly say the person in the drivers seat was driver?

I posted exactly what the law said in message #274.

 

[nitsuj]

I posted exactly what the law said in message #274.

I don't see that as unclear in the context of this case. The lone person in the car, in the drivers seat is the operator of the vehicle; regardless of what tech was engaged, by the operator, to assist in operating the vehicle.

The courts don't find it silly exactly because the laws can be ambiguous - they were not written with such a case in mind.

Laws weren't written for an infinite number of variables. imo the driver was in control of the car. I appreciate you see it differently.

 

[TeethWhitener]

looked it up. The legal term is "operator" and the legal definition is . "Operator" means a person who drives a motor vehicle on a highway, who is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle on a highway or who is exercising control over or steering a vehicle being towed by a motor vehicle.

I think the phrase "actual physical control" is subject to lawyering,

"Actual physical control" may be subject to lawyering, but is "person?" Unless you want to argue that the car's programming is a person, either the check driver was in control or no one was.

 

[russ_watters]

"Actual physical control" may be subject to lawyering, but is "person?" Unless you want to argue that the car's programming is a person, either the check driver was in control or no one was.

Not the programming, the programmer.

It's a tough call though whether to consider a disabled safety feature an "operator" error or product defect.

 

[nsaspook]

Not the programming, the programmer.

What are the limits of "Actual physical control" by a person?

As was discussed earlier in this thread, would the programmer(s) be negligent if the programming resulted in a reasonably prudent person (human level per current law) driving? If beyond human driving capabilities like LIDAR, night vision or even emergency auto-braking fail to prevent a fatal 'accident', what would be the liability if a reasonably prudent human driver would also fail without those advanced driving capabilities?

 

[CWatters]

Self-driving car hits self-driving robot
_{The robot wars have begun.}

A robot got lost following other robots and ended up on a street where a Tesla pushed it to the side. The driver said he was aware of the robot but didn't brake - probably because no human was in danger. The robot fell over and got damaged.

While it is interesting to learn how the robot made it to the street: The car should have avoided the robot, and it will be interesting to see Tesla's reaction to it.

Apparently this was a staged crash that the media fell for.

 

[256bits]

One can actually see a rope on the robot's arm.

 

[nsaspook]

One can actually see a rope on the robot's arm.

 

[russ_watters]

What are the limits of "Actual physical control" by a person?

As was discussed earlier in this thread, would the programmer(s) be negligent if the programming resulted in a reasonably prudent person (human level per current law) driving? If beyond human driving capabilities like LIDAR, night vision or even emergency auto-braking fail to prevent a fatal 'accident', what would be the liability if a reasonably prudent human driver would also fail without those advanced driving capabilities?

Yes, this is a key open question. The collision avoidance and other automation features that are becoming widespread carry disclaimers in the owner's manuals that tell the driver they are responsible and not to rely on those features. It does logically make sense because those features should only kick in after the human has failed to act when they should. But that's just what their lawyers tell them to write. I don't know if they've been tested in litigation.

But in this accident, the level of automation is higher (and thus the level of ongoing control by the driver lower), but a safety feature was purposely disabled by the manufacturer, which is a specific decision by a person.

One thing that is cool but a double-edged sword about Teslas is their contentedness allows them to be updated without the user's knowledge. This creates a risk that a software flaw could be installed overnight in a million cars that suddenly makes them all unsafe of non-functional.

 

[mfb]

Apparently this was a staged crash that the media fell for.

electrek wrote an article about it: A robot company stages Tesla crash as a PR stunt, media buys it

While the rest of the article is good I'm not sure how good their argument about the passenger's statement is. Yes, the feature has a different name, but if people could correctly describe which software feature they used how we could get rid of half of the IT support staff.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

https://www.foxnews.com/auto/safety...us-driver-in-moving-tesla-is-caught-on-cameraSafety groups urge caution as another possibly unconscious driver in moving Tesla is caught on camera

 

[nsaspook]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradte...cy-for-fatal-uber-robocar-crash/#316b8624c6d2
NTSB Hearing Blames Humans, Software And Policy For Fatal Uber Robocar Crash - But Mostly Humans

Human errors

When it comes to human fault, the report noted that Herzberg had a “high concentration of methamphetamine” (more than 10 times the medicinal dose) in her blood which would alter her perception. She also had some marijuana residue. She did not look to her right at the oncoming vehicle until 1 second before the crash.

There was also confirmation that the safety driver had indeed pulled out a cell phone and was streaming a TV show on it, looking down at it 34% of the time during her driving session, with a full 5 second “glance” from 6 to 1 seconds prior to the impact.
...
Normally, a pedestrian crossing a high speed street outside a crosswalk would exercise some minimal caution, starting with “look both ways before crossing the street” as we are all taught as children. By all appearances, the crash took place late on a Sunday night on a largely empty road, exactly the sort of situation where a person would normally hear any approaching car well in advance, and check regularly to the right for oncoming traffic, which would be very obvious because of its headlights – obvious even in peripheral vision. Herzberg crossed obliviously, looking over just one second before impact. NTSB investigators attributed this to the meth in her system. They did not know if the concentration in her blood was going up (due to recently taken doses) and altering perception, or coming down (causing unusual moods.)

 

[Vanadium 50]

As an update, the driver has been charged with negligent homicide.

If convicted, this will be the driver's second felony conviction.