[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

AZ Governor and Laws say that’s not the law and so any charges of that kind will not be upheld if they ever get to court.

Wrong.

Facts are facts.

Case closed.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

Wrong.

Facts are facts.

Case closed.

Facts are truths.

Your posts are not.

Reposting a false piece of information does not make the false information suddey true as you continue to maintain.

Just means you are just as wrong as the link.

Case closed.

[och]

Same location from someone elses dashcam footage. The road is ridiculously well lit with absolutely no shadows. The original video of the incident was probably recorded from an LCD screen that it was being played on, thus the lack of contrast.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by och

Same location from someone elses dashcam footage. The road is ridiculously well lit with absolutely no shadows.

that is exactly what I meant when I wrote:

Originally Posted by GuidoK

But you're judging this based on that the camera is as good as your eye.
I dont know if you have a dashcam or do dashcam testing, but the naked eye can see so much more than a camera can.
I dont know if the naked eye could have spotted the victim in time, but it sure could have spotted it earlier than when looking at dashcam footage.

Originally Posted by GuidoK

Sure these conditions are tretcherous but judging it from a dashcam holds no real connection to real world situations because the eye sees things differently than a camera.......
I can easily make a video with a dashcam where someone is inviseable where they are in real situ easily seeable.

In reaction on IK6SPEED counting frames and stating it as fact that the driver couldnt see it because of that dashcam footage.

IF something like this goes to court this will certainly be addressed on this level.
I mean it can be clearly seen that the person in the car isnt paying attention to the road (which is his/her job, the person is there to supervise the test), so if the victim was visible it will be another case (if the situation matches that last footage). That a pedestrian doesnt have right of way doesnt automatically mean you dont have to brake before him if he crosses the road. That someone crosses the road and doesnt yield, doesnt give you the right to run him over.
It takes the blame away if you hit him/her and you couldnt do anything about it. But not watching the road is not the same as not being able to do anything about it. Not watching the road and therefore not seeing him/her is a deliberate or intended action from which the results are clear. Watching the road and not seeing him (for instance looking at other things on the road) or even not braking hard enough, is not a deliberate action but non intended judgement error.
At least this is how things are often looked at in courts. Thats why for example drunk driving and causing an accident, or phone texting and causing an accident are treated very differently than causing an accident because you steered incorrectly or judged a distance wrongly.
The last two are non intenional errors, but the first two arent. The reason is that everyone knows when they dont look at the road or start drinking before driving their driving capabilities are impaired.
The police said apparantly that the driver wouldnt have been able to spot the victim/prevent the crash, but if I see that last cam footage.... lawyers and external experts are gonna have a field day when this goes to court with proof that the driver/supervisor wasnt looking at the road....

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by och

Same location from someone elses dashcam footage. The road is ridiculously well lit with absolutely no shadows. The original video of the incident was probably recorded from an LCD screen that it was being played on, thus the lack of contrast.

Originally Posted by GuidoK

In reaction on IK6SPEED counting frames and stating it as fact that the driver couldnt see it because of that dashcam footage.

IF something like this goes to court this will certainly be addressed on this level.
I mean it can be clearly seen that the person in the car isnt paying attention to the road (which is his/her job, the person is there to supervise the test), so if the victim was visible it will be another case (if the situation matches that last footage). That a pedestrian doesnt have right of way doesnt automatically mean you dont have to brake before him if he crosses the road. That someone crosses the road and doesnt yield, doesnt give you the right to run him over.
It takes the blame away if you hit him/her and you couldnt do anything about it. But not watching the road is not the same as not being able to do anything about it. Not watching the road and therefore not seeing him/her is a deliberate or intended action from which the results are clear. Watching the road and not seeing him (for instance looking at other things on the road) or even not braking hard enough, is not a deliberate action but non intended judgement error.
At least this is how things are often looked at in courts. Thats why for example drunk driving and causing an accident, or phone texting and causing an accident are treated very differently than causing an accident because you steered incorrectly or judged a distance wrongly.
The last two are non intenional errors, but the first two arent. The reason is that everyone knows when they dont look at the road or start drinking before driving their driving capabilities are impaired.
The police said apparantly that the driver wouldnt have been able to spot the victim/prevent the crash, but if I see that last cam footage.... lawyers and external experts are gonna have a field day when this goes to court with proof that the driver/supervisor wasnt looking at the road....

Incorrect on so many points.

1) iihs rated the 2016 XC90 Headlights poor. Not an Apple to Apples comparison with different auto.

2) there was no moon that night (new moon day before on 17th). How much was it on night filmed.

3) light varies depending on distance from lightpost. Victim was not directly under light. Even those videos show dead zones.

4) Victim was wearing dark clothes against a dark background.

5) you fail to note video shows 45 MPH limit at end of bridge and NO 35MPH signs. Uber at 38 MPH was 7 MPH under limit.

6) If a person behind the wheel takes over when they can see something (debatable) then the system will never tested.

7) Under Arizona law, person behind steering wheel cannot be charged if car is in Autonmous Law. Newspaper clearly states that LEO said they would charge driver, but that was a statement earlier than March 1st Executive Order.

8) Being homeless, if victim has relatives, will be impossible for them to show loss of victim was a loss in their lives as it would be shown if she was so important, they would have had her living with them instead of on street. I doubt Court will allow anyone standing to file a civil suit.

So all your speculation leaves out the most important things...Facts.

[GuidoK]

Even without headlights visibility is greatly different than the ubercar footage.
Point is (and stands) that you cannot judge it from a dashcam. Lawyers are gonna have a field day when this goes to court.
And that the person behind the wheel cannot be charged, doesnt mean Uber cant be charged for having an employee that doesnt do his/hers work correctly by not intervening in a deadly accident because he/she isnt paying attention.

And I specificly like your point 6:

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

6) If a person behind the wheel takes over when they can see something (debatable) then the system will never tested.

.

You're absolutely right, how would we know if the car can prevent a deadly accident if we dont intervene when one is about to happen. GREAT ARGUMENT.
Lets change one thing, then test it again. Remember, no intervening when a deadly accident is about to happen again because we then dont know if its really gonna work...

I'm sure Ubers lawyers are gonna say this in court....

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

It really is eye opening to see people (well, at least one guy) apparently think the "operator" in the Uber vehicle is under no legal responsibility to do anything. I know I'd be pretty damn concerned right now if I was that Uber employee. I'd bet Uber never lets him anyplace near one of their cars again.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

Even without headlights visibility is greatly different than the ubercar footage.
Point is (and stands) that you cannot judge it from a dashcam. Lawyers are gonna have a field day when this goes to court.
And that the person behind the wheel cannot be charged, doesnt mean Uber cant be charged for having an employee that doesnt do his/hers work correctly by not intervening in a deadly accident because he/she isnt paying attention.

And I specificly like your point 6:


You're absolutely right, how would we know if the car can prevent a deadly accident if we dont intervene when one is about to happen. GREAT ARGUMENT.
Lets change one thing, then test it again. Remember, no intervening when a deadly accident is about to happen again because we then dont know if its really gonna work...

I'm sure Ubers lawyers are gonna say this in court....

It will never see inside of Courtroom

As I previously stated, if this was at intersection, it most likely would have played out differently.

One has to give system time to react (which it didn’t react to).

There was not enough time for even human to intervene in regular XC90 based on the perfect storm of events I listed in post.

[GuidoK]

Especially this pic from och was an eye opener:


Both dashcams, both similar circumstances (no rain or snow whatever, just dark).
Sure the different headlights from the cars are the key difference... like lighting up that whole building in the back
The first sensor clearly has far less dynamic range in dark spots.

And I'm sure that the eye will see it differently again. Personally I've never seen a dashcam that can match the eye, and I had quite a few, also with the sony 323 sensor which is currently one of the better sensors in current dashcams when it comes to resolution/dynamic range at night (its a commercialized version of the IMX323LQN). I currently have one with the sony 323 and the 291.

This is a little bit conspiracy theory, but the police was very fast in stating that a normal driver couldnt have prevented the accident either (or at least thats what I understood from all of it). Thats a bold claim.
Are they (the police and possibly the political establishment) trying to protect Uber?
I mean on the one hand you have a dead victim. But homeless, convicted, a nuisance to society?
And on the other hand a large corporation. That has a very extensive testing program. To engage such a testing program, a lot of talking with government, politicians, police, experts has to be done to implement the specifics. Takes a lot of man hours. All have to be paid one way or another. Uber putting a lot of cars on the road. All with a supervisior. All paid jobs for people in the area....
Food for thought.

[och]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

Especially this pic from och was an eye opener:


Both dashcams, both similar circumstances (no rain or snow whatever, just dark).
Sure the different headlights from the cars are the key difference... like lighting up that whole building in the back

And I'm sure that the eye will see it differently again. Personally I've never seen a dashcam that can match the eye, and I had quite a few, also with the sony 323 sensor which is currently one of the better sensors in current dashcams when it comes to resolution/dynamic range at night (its a commercialized version of the IMX323LQN)

This is a little bit conspiracy theory, but the police was very fast in stating that a normal driver couldnt have prevented the accident either (or at least thats what I understood from all of it). Thats a bold claim.
Are they (the police and possibly the political establishment) trying to protect Uber?
I mean on the one hand you have a dead victim. But homeless, convicted, a nuisance to society?
And on the other hand a large corporation. That has a very extensive testing program. To engage such a testing program, a lot of talking with government, politicians, police, experts has to be done. Takes a lot of man hours. All have to be paid one way or another. Uber putting a lot of cars on the road. All with a supervisior. All paid jobs for people in the area....
Food for thought.

Uber spends a lot of money lobbying politicians, so of course the state will try to protect Uber. Understand, that Uber is developing this whole "autonomous" technology not to benefit the public, but so that they can hire unlicensed, unqualified people to "supervise" their autonomous cars and trucks (Uber recently announced their autonomous truck program).

There are going to be a lot of interested parties in this, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out. Remember the absolute shtstorm with Toyotas unintended acceleration that could never be proven, and Toyota still paid billions in fines and settlements?

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

Both dashcams, both similar circumstances (no rain or snow whatever, just dark).
Sure the different headlights from the cars are the key difference... like lighting up that whole building in the back
The first sensor clearly has far less dynamic range in dark spots.

And I'm sure that the eye will see it differently again. Personally I've never seen a dashcam that can match the eye, and I had quite a few, also with the sony 323 sensor which is currently one of the better sensors in current dashcams when it comes to resolution/dynamic range at night (its a commercialized version of the IMX323LQN). I currently have one with the sony 323 and the 291.

This is a little bit conspiracy theory, but the police was very fast in stating that a normal driver couldnt have prevented the accident either (or at least thats what I understood from all of it). Thats a bold claim.
Are they (the police and possibly the political establishment) trying to protect Uber?
I mean on the one hand you have a dead victim. But homeless, convicted, a nuisance to society?
And on the other hand a large corporation. That has a very extensive testing program. To engage such a testing program, a lot of talking with government, politicians, police, experts has to be done to implement the specifics. Takes a lot of man hours. All have to be paid one way or another. Uber putting a lot of cars on the road. All with a supervisior. All paid jobs for people in the area....
Food for thought.

Can you show evidence that building was all lit up 10PM Sunday night (when most newer buildings turn off all lighting and AC over the weekend) as opposed to whatever night and time this dashcam video was made?

You assume a lot, and may be correct, but we know what they say about assuming.

I can 100% guarantee the conditions in that video are different than what happened on Sunday night.

How different is unknown, by you or me.

Funny you were willing to take LEOs statement of 35MPH zone as fact all day, but are unwilling to accept their statements human driver most likely would not have been able to avoid.

You show a complete bias in agreeing with LEO statements only when they agree with your opinion.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

...the police was very fast in stating that a normal driver probably couldn't have prevented the accident either. Thats a bold claim.
Are they trying to protect Uber?
On one hand you have a single dead jaywalker without reflectors...
And on the other hand a large corporation bringing an extensive testing program to the area. To engage such a testing program there will be a lot of getting close to politicians, bureaucrats, police, etc.. All have an interest. Uber putting a lot of cars on the road. All with a supervisior. All paid jobs for people in the area....
Food for thought.

Took some liberties in editing the quote above. No disrespect intended. Just wanted to bring it in closer before agreeing.

As to the topic of the OPs quote... The situation doesn't inspire visions of impartiality. I could only dream of getting the same consideration from the police if I were to accidentally hit someone. The average person definitely doesn't get treated this way in the Metro-NY area. Ethics-be-damned... Around here there is an expectation of an arrest when a fatality is involved.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

Funny you were willing to take LEOs statement of 35MPH zone as fact all day, but are unwilling to accept their statements human driver most likely would not have been able to avoid.

You show a complete bias in agreeing with LEO statements only when they agree with your opinion.

But the first thing is a simple fact, its strange that the police have the maximum speed limit wrong in a press release.

The second one isnt a fact, but a claim. And I'm not disagreeing, I just say that its a bold claim so soon. Usually they only state facts that they have verified, and dont resort to claims. Thats something for the aftermath. But in this case it seems to be the other way round. Not checking facts (or at least that one fact) they release in a press release and make a claim, an assumption.
In the court room you would hear "objection, the officer makes an assumption" or whatever legal phrase they make of it when they hear out an officer.

As for the building, then look at the sign on the building, or the trees around the road or any other detail. It all goes from not/barly visible to well lit.
Lawyers and experts are gonna have a field day in trial, constructing scenarios on the place of the accident, filming with calibrated cameras etc etc. I mean a lawsuit against Uber, everyone chips in with no cure no pay. (because cure=mucho pay). Any living relative (if there are any) will have so much backing.
The only way this doesnt go to court (civil, if there are legal beneficiaries so to speak) is when Uber settles (with millions and millions)

[Efthreeoh]

Just saw the video of the accident. The autonomous tech totally screwed up. Radar and Lidar should have seen the pedestrian way before the headlights (for a human driver). The ride along passenger behind the wheel was not paying attention.

Hope Uber, Google and all the other dorks who think they can make a car drive better than a human get the living shit sued out of them.

[wdb]

[RickFLM4]

Stepped out to see a client for an afternoon and missed 50+ posts... oh well.

[UncleWede]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

But the first thing is a simple fact, its strange that the police have the maximum speed limit wrong in a press release.

The second one isnt a fact, but a claim. And I'm not disagreeing, I just say that its a bold claim so soon. Usually they only state facts that they have verified, and dont resort to claims. Thats something for the aftermath. But in this case it seems to be the other way round. Not checking facts (or at least that one fact) they release in a press release and make a claim, an assumption.
In the court room you would hear "objection, the officer makes an assumption" or whatever legal phrase they make of it when they hear out an officer.

As for the building, then look at the sign on the building, or the trees around the road or any other detail. It all goes from not/barly visible to well lit.
Lawyers and experts are gonna have a field day in trial, constructing scenarios on the place of the accident, filming with calibrated cameras etc etc. I mean a lawsuit against Uber, everyone chips in with no cure no pay. (because cure=mucho pay). Any living relative (if there are any) will have so much backing.
The only way this doesnt go to court (civil, if there are legal beneficiaries so to speak) is when Uber settles (with millions and millions)

LEO are considered experts and can enter "opinions" based on their training.

[MightyMouseTech]

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03...nt-believe-it/

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by MightyMouseTech

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03...nt-believe-it/

Great link. Thanks but after a night's sleep I'm starting to understand IK6SPEED's logic...

Governor's Executive Order + jaywalking + no reflectors = plow the pedestrian without repercussions.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

Great link. Thanks but after a night's sleep I'm starting to understand IK6SPEED's logic...

Governor's Executive Order + jaywalking + no reflectors = plow the pedestrian without repercussions.

I've been involved for the better part of 20 years with integration of large systems. That involvement includes all aspects of engineering including test engeering. Additionally, when the large integrated system involves the safety of life (like the nation's air traffic control system, or autonomous vehicles) beta testing in a live environment (vs. a lab) is just not proper testing protocol. Who in the hell ever let this type of test go on should be sued into homelessness. Just because the Governor executes an executive order to allow it, does not mean it passes legal muster and alleviates personal responsibility.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

From "The Failing NY Times:" Uber’s Self-Driving Cars Were Struggling Before Arizona Crash

Uber’s robotic vehicle project was not living up to expectations months before a self-driving car operated by the company struck and killed a woman in Tempe, Ariz.

The cars were having trouble driving through construction zones and next to tall vehicles, like big rigs. And Uber’s human drivers had to intervene far more frequently than the drivers of competing autonomous car projects.

Yet Uber’s test drivers were being asked to do more — going on solo runs when they had worked in pairs. And there also was pressure to live up to a goal to offer a driverless car service by the end of the year and to impress top executives.

Early on in Phoenix, there were two groups of test drivers. A smaller group “stressed” the cars by putting them in challenging situations where, without human intervention, they would have crashed.

A larger group of drivers was focused on picking up customers in the autonomous vehicles. Those drivers were expected to pay more attention to little details, often taking control to prevent a “bad experience” like hard braking, according to a company document.

Around October, Uber merged the two groups to get to a point where it could offer a truly driverless car service to customers “as quickly as possible.” The customer pickup service was mostly dropped so drivers could focus on accumulating miles and gathering data to help the system become more reliable.

Around the same time, Uber moved from two employees in every car to one. The paired employees had been splitting duties — one ready to take over if the autonomous system failed, and another to keep an eye on what the computers were detecting.

When Uber moved to a single operator, some employees expressed safety concerns to managers, according to the two people familiar with Uber’s operations. They were worried that going solo would make it harder to remain alert during hours of monotonous driving.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Around October, Uber's autonomous-driver customer pickup service was mostly dropped...

(edited quote above)

Well isn't this interesting!