Police release video of fatal collision between self-driving Uber and Arizona woman

[captaincranky]

Well, as is clearly the case to everyone except you, you thought wrong!

Gutsy move, I'm wrong because you say so.

The chief of police stated that the car was not at fault - and that even a car with a driver would likely have had the exact same thing happen.... Therefore, no charges will be levied, and the fault is clearly with the deceased.

A lot of politicians say a lot of things, not necessarily rooted in absolute truth. And make no mistake about it, there's is a lot of politics involved with leading a municipal police force. Things like the town's mayor, telling him (or her), what should be said to the media.

Besides, you seem hell bent on blaming the pedestrian. I've already conceded that she was likely in the wrong,. So it would seem, you like to hear yourself talk, as much or more than I do. My question simply involves whether the car did enough, or at least reacted as effectively as a human operator would have, under the same circumstance.

As I believe it's been said many times, "two wrongs don't make a right".

I do love how people on here, not having been at the scene itself, and having no traffic police experience, assume their conclusions - which are solely based on the released video along with their own biases - must be superior to the experts.

And I lke, how you'll argue to the death with me, even if you haven't read or understood completely what I've said. I did get "A's" in college level English, and "The Cat in the Hat", wasn't in the syllabus.

Sometimes, there's no need to invoke a conspiracy when simple stupidity solves everything

I doubt you've been qualified anywhere to administer IQ tests, particularly over the internet

 

[captaincranky]

Blah blah blah

Sometimes I think you even disagree with yourself.


Tell that to the next cop working an accident scene from a collision.

So I can show you written, in the book traffic statutes about right of way, and I'm still wrong? Spare me.

Obviously existing law attaches to exigent circumstance, but the generalized statement you made, "the car always has the right of way", is patently false.

State laws obviously may vary, but here in PA, the overarching principal is this, "no one has the 'right of way', you can only yield it, or have it yielded to you".

 

[cliffordcooley]

So I can show you written, in the book traffic statutes about right of way, and I'm still wrong? Spare me.

I'm beginning to wonder if you even know how to drive.

 

[Skjorn]

But the POINT was that the pedestrian only has the right of way when there is an intersection or crosswalk.... THIS example was no such thing!! She was NOT crossing at a crosswalk, nor was it an intersection! The pedestrian did NOT have right of way - and so while it's tragic that she died, it is HER FAULT!

Yeah we know it's the pedestrian's fault... that isn't the issue. The issue is could it have been avoided.

 

[captaincranky]

I'm beginning to wonder if you even know how to drive.

Quit posting crap, when you're wrong about right of way, or anything else, you're wrong.

And that's whether I'm in context or not.

I'm also pretty sure I've been driving cars, trucks, and motorcycles, decades before you uttered your first incorrect statement on the internet.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Yeah we know it's the pedestrian's fault... that isn't the issue. The issue is could it have been avoided.

It could have been avoided by the pedestrian not being stupid.... It was already stated that even a car with a driver would have killed her....

 

[Skjorn]

It could have been avoided by the pedestrian not being stupid.... It was already stated that even a car with a driver would have killed her....

I disagree because of experience. I have dodged humans because there was no time to stop. It was only abrupt here because the camera footage is bad. She did not jump out in front of anyone, she was walking at a steady pace.

 

[captaincranky]

...[ By the way, we just had yet another pedestrian fatality in our city last night - hit by a car WITH A DRIVER.... almost certainly the pedestrian's fault.... Wonder if a driverless car would have saved her life?

And my city has had numerous pedestrian fatalities on our Roosevelt Boulevard, by virtue of drivers going 70 MPH in a 45 MPH zone while talking on their cell phones, or being drunk, or otherwise incapacitated..These accidents more often than not, occur under the same conditions as the accident under discussion. Pedestrians must share part of that blame, because those who were killed, failed to make adequate corrections in judgment as to the car's actual speed, and how fast they themselves are capable of moving.

Which seems to sway the advantage to the autonomous vehicle.

The driverless car may have saved their lives, but at rush hour, better leave quite a bit extra time for the commute, because these cars will be keyed to drive at the prevailing speed limit. Even at the times when it really is necessary to travel faster than posted, just to get everybody off the streets, and back to their families.

 

[Squid Surprise]

I disagree because of experience. I have dodged humans because there was no time to stop. It was only abrupt here because the camera footage is bad. She did not jump out in front of anyone, she was walking at a steady pace.

Ah... your "experience".... and naturally, that's much more reliable than the actual chief of police, who not only has far more experience with these kind of things than you, but also has access to more information in regards to this specific case...

 

[cliffordcooley]

Ah... your "experience".... and naturally, that's much more reliable than the actual chief of police

Who has probably worked cases of people who have been killed for trying to dodge objects.

 

[Skjorn]

Ah... your "experience".... and naturally, that's much more reliable than the actual chief of police, who not only has far more experience with these kind of things than you, but also has access to more information in regards to this specific case...

Yall ever dodged anything driving? or just sit and pray your brakes stop you in time? Discrediting someone's experiences because you don't have any? you don't really need to be a chief of police to figure out the footage is poor quality, no sensors worked and the driver nor the ped was paying attention. Doesn't take an expert to see the ped was walking straight and not "jumping" out in front of the car like you said. If there was better footage this wouldn't be a discussion.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Yall ever dodged anything driving? or just sit and pray your brakes stop you in time? Discrediting someone's experiences because you don't have any? you don't really need to be a chief of police to figure out the footage is poor quality, no sensors worked and the driver nor the ped was paying attention. Doesn't take an expert to see the ped was walking straight and not "jumping" out in front of the car like you said. If there was better footage this wouldn't be a discussion.

Perhaps the sensors noticed objects on either side of the car - so "dodging" would have been worse... or perhaps it really WAS so abrupt that nothing could have been done... either way, YOU don't have that information - but the experts who were on the scene and are in charge of investigating DO... So why do you feel that your experience, and limited access to information, makes you more suitable for making a judgment than the Chief of Police?

 

[captaincranky]

Perhaps the sensors noticed objects on either side of the car - so "dodging" would have been worse... or perhaps it really WAS so abrupt that nothing could have been done... either way, YOU don't have that information - but the experts who were on the scene and are in charge of investigating DO... So why do you feel that your experience, and limited access to information, makes you more suitable for making a judgment than the Chief of Police?

And the governor of Arizona just overruled him: https://www.techspot.com/community/...us-vehicles-on-states-public-roadways.245451/

Better up your game quite a bit if you plan on taking on the entire Arizona state government. I\m pretty sure the whole, "because the police chief said so" dogma, isn't going to fly.

 

[Squid Surprise]

And the governor of Arizona just overruled him: https://www.techspot.com/community/...us-vehicles-on-states-public-roadways.245451/

Better up your game quite a bit if you plan on taking on the entire Arizona state government. I\m pretty sure the whole, "because the police chief said so" dogma, isn't going to fly.

How does this disprove anything? A Governor is NOT an expert on traffic safety... HE is strictly political! He is overruling the experts solely based on public opinion (or possibly hoping for more concessions from Uber in order to resume testing).

The line that states that the matter is under investigation but Arizona must act now is almost comical... Translation: We have no idea if Uber is at fault, but we're going to suspend them anyways because my constituents are m0r0ns....

 

[captaincranky]

How does this disprove anything? A Governor is NOT an expert on traffic safety... HE is strictly political! He is overruling the experts solely based on public opinion (or possibly hoping for more concessions from Uber in order to resume testing).

The line that states that the matter is under investigation but Arizona must act now is almost comical... Translation: We have no idea if Uber is at fault, but we're going to suspend them anyways because my constituents are m0r0ns....

I thought you'd know more than the governor. I wuz jus' checkin['.

 

[Squid Surprise]

I thought you'd know more than the governor. I wuz jus' checkin['.

Fair enough... troll on ...

 

[Reachable]

Jaywalking should not EVER be a crime. Take some time to ponder that if you never have, because contemporary society has warped everyone's perspective. The only exception would be when the street crosser is DELIBERATELY trying to cause an accident, but how exceedingly rare that would ever be.

With the exception of limited-access highways, built specifically for motor traffic and only motor traffic, a public road is a thoroughfare for all. It is the responsibility for faster and larger vehicles to watch out for, avoid, and give right of way to pedestrians, bicycles, and smaller motor vehicles. The right of way is inverse to the size, the bigger and/or faster must yield to the smaller and slower. The infestation of cars got so bad that pedestrians came to be looked at as interlopers and interferers and laws were made to limit their use of public roads.

If you're a pedestrian I would recommend, for your own safety, to use crosswalks when crossing the street. But you're perfectly within your rights in a sane world to cross wherever you want.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Jaywalking should not EVER be a crime. Take some time to ponder that if you never have, because contemporary society has warped everyone's perspective. The only exception would be when the street crosser is DELIBERATELY trying to cause an accident, but how exceedingly rare that would ever be.

With the exception of limited-access highways, built specifically for motor traffic and only motor traffic, a public road is a thoroughfare for all. It is the responsibility for faster and larger vehicles to watch out for, avoid, and give right of way to pedestrians, bicycles, and smaller motor vehicles. The right of way is inverse to the size, the bigger and/or faster must yield to the smaller and slower. The infestation of cars got so bad that pedestrians came to be looked at as interlopers and interferers and laws were made to limit their use of public roads.

If you're a pedestrian I would recommend, for your own safety, to use crosswalks when crossing the street. But you're perfectly within your rights in a sane world to cross wherever you want.

So you’re saying that if there are hundreds of cars driving down a street, a person is within their rights to cross in the middle and those cars should be responsible for stopping?

People who think like you are the reason we have so many fatalities.... we have traffic rules for a reason - disobey them at your own peril!

 

[Reachable]

So you’re saying that if there are hundreds of cars driving down a street, a person is within their rights to cross in the middle and those cars should be responsible for stopping?

People who think like you are the reason we have so many fatalities.... we have traffic rules for a reason - disobey them at your own peril!

I'm not advocating stupidity. If a street is uncrossable it's insane to try to cross. But if there are no cars coming, it should not be considered criminal to cross when you're not at a crosswalk. What's really important is that there have been injustices where a pedestrian has been punished more harshly than an irresponsible driver in tragedies where a responsible driver would have avoided the tragedy. There's a drive these days for harsher jaywalking laws. Drivers don't like to be slowed by pedestrians. Well, tough noogies.

 

[captaincranky]

I'm not advocating stupidity. If a street is uncrossable it's insane to try to cross. But if there are no cars coming, it should not be considered criminal to cross when you're not at a crosswalk. What's really important is that there have been injustices where a pedestrian has been punished more harshly than an irresponsible driver in tragedies where a responsible driver would have avoided the tragedy. There's a drive these days for harsher jaywalking laws. Drivers don't like to be slowed by pedestrians. Well, tough noogies.

Well, Philadelphia, (or maybe PA, not sure), enacted legislation which prohibits a vehicle from moving through a crosswalk,. until ALL pedestrians have reached the opposite sidewalk. That action has precipitated self important and overtly rude, inconsiderate individuals, taking their sweet old time crossing the streets. The term, "sauntering like the have a pole shoved up the a**", is actually closer to fact. While they're at it, many are running their yaps on the phone and dishing out snide looks while you are forced to sit their through the self involved show. In other words, they willfully, and with malice aforethought, inconvenience the person behind the wheel, as much and as long as they can

Now keep in mind these pedestrians have to use the crosswalk to be provided with this protection. And in the meantime, I think they should be given tickets for littering, hampering the flow of traffic, jaywalking, or whatever else a traffic cop might have in mind, to convince them they're part of a greater whole, not someone the earth revolves around.

I'm close to 70 years old, and I've never been as rude and/or inconsiderate to others in my life, whether I've been behind the wheel, or on foot. I always try to give the guy behind the wheel a break by going into double step time to get out of their way, or cross behind the car whenever I can.

The best way to speed the flow of the car and the pedestrian at the same time, is to have the car not linger at the stop sign, and let the pedestrian take whatever time necessary to cross the street unimpeded, behind the vehicle.

I find myself in the unfamiliar, (and repugnant to me), territory of completely agreeing with Mr. Surprise on this issue. At least with respect to the issue of making pedestrians as liable to be ticketed as the car driver, when they commit an infraction.

Traffic laws are intended to govern the movement of traffic, independent of whatever mode of transport that might be.

I will say, the automobile alters a person's personality, and you can judge an individuals outlook on other people demographically, by simply allowing a driver to make a left in front of you. I'm not about to expand on the demographics in this forum, but I will say you can immediately pick those who feel a major sense of self entitlement out, simply by noting whether or not they acknowledge the favor which has been done for them.

 

[Squid Surprise]

I'm not advocating stupidity. If a street is uncrossable it's insane to try to cross. But if there are no cars coming, it should not be considered criminal to cross when you're not at a crosswalk. What's really important is that there have been injustices where a pedestrian has been punished more harshly than an irresponsible driver in tragedies where a responsible driver would have avoided the tragedy. There's a drive these days for harsher jaywalking laws. Drivers don't like to be slowed by pedestrians. Well, tough noogies.

We're not talking about when no cars are driving here... this accident happened when a pedestrian illegally crossed a street in front of a moving car...

And let's forget the "legality" of this and simply think about common sense... If you're a person walking, or a person driving - when you collide, the one who will die is the one NOT in the car.... It therefore is simply logical that the person who should be exercising caution should be the person NOT in the car!! They're the one with the most to lose!!

One of the reasons I don't drive a motorcycle - I know that if a car crashes into me, even if it's the car's fault, I'm the one who will be dead!!

One of the greatest flaws of our world nowadays seems to be the absence of responsibility. Someone gets hurt, they immediately sue - even if it's their fault! There ought to be some accountability... you cross a street and get hit by a bar, unless the car was TRYING to hit you, it's YOUR FAULT!!!

 

[Reachable]

We're not talking about when no cars are driving here... this accident happened when a pedestrian illegally crossed a street in front of a moving car...

And let's forget the "legality" of this and simply think about common sense... If you're a person walking, or a person driving - when you collide, the one who will die is the one NOT in the car.... It therefore is simply logical that the person who should be exercising caution should be the person NOT in the car!! They're the one with the most to lose!!

One of the reasons I don't drive a motorcycle - I know that if a car crashes into me, even if it's the car's fault, I'm the one who will be dead!!

One of the greatest flaws of our world nowadays seems to be the absence of responsibility. Someone gets hurt, they immediately sue - even if it's their fault! There ought to be some accountability... you cross a street and get hit by a bar, unless the car was TRYING to hit you, it's YOUR FAULT!!!

I was angered by the posts in this thread that blamed the person who got killed. I saw that blame as a typical reaction by most people, who it seems embrace the perspective of a driver (even though they are sometimes pedestrians).

People, on foot, have to get from Point A to Point B, and that can involve crossing a road. The road can be as dangerous as a raging, flooded river. It does require patience. If you lose your patience and dart out into the street, whether you're not at a crosswalk or even whether you are, and a driver has to swerve to avoid you and as a result crashes head-on with someone coming the other way, and then gets rear-ended, and three people end up being hospitalized, you should be held to a reasonable accountability. Maybe it's "reckless endangerment".

I'm aware that this contradicts somewhat my original post. I objected to those who said that the woman was making an illegal crossing. I don't buy 'illegal' crossings. You can cross anywhere you want as long as it seems you would be safe doing so.

To avoid something like this happening again, you have to distill it down to what really could be changed, and in the end it's the goddam self-driving car. The pedestrian may not have seen or heard the car. The driver, although technically negligent, was trying to break up the tedium of being essentially a lone passenger in an aimlessly wandering automaton. The car, if it had worked properly, would have braked and avoided the accident. That's what has to be worked on.

What's more, it seems like those with dreams and ambitions are blind to the impracticalities of self-driving cars in congested urban areas.

 

[Squid Surprise]

I was angered by the posts in this thread that blamed the person who got killed. I saw that blame as a typical reaction by most people, who it seems embrace the perspective of a driver (even though they are sometimes pedestrians).

People, on foot, have to get from Point A to Point B, and that can involve crossing a road. The road can be as dangerous as a raging, flooded river. It does require patience. If you lose your patience and dart out into the street, whether you're not at a crosswalk or even whether you are, and a driver has to swerve to avoid you and as a result crashes head-on with someone coming the other way, and then gets rear-ended, and three people end up being hospitalized, you should be held to a reasonable accountability. Maybe it's "reckless endangerment".

I'm aware that this contradicts somewhat my original post. I objected to those who said that the woman was making an illegal crossing. I don't buy 'illegal' crossings. You can cross anywhere you want as long as it seems you would be safe doing so.

To avoid something like this happening again, you have to distill it down to what really could be changed, and in the end it's the goddam self-driving car. The pedestrian may not have seen or heard the car. The driver, although technically negligent, was trying to break up the tedium of being essentially a lone passenger in an aimlessly wandering automaton. The car, if it had worked properly, would have braked and avoided the accident. That's what has to be worked on.

What's more, it seems like those with dreams and ambitions are blind to the impracticalities of self-driving cars in congested urban areas.

I understand your anger - but it is misplaced. Sometimes, in fact, I’ll go as far as to say MOST times, pedestrian deaths are their own fault!

Even a self-driving car that has gone out of control.... it should still be on the pedestrians to pay attention! To quote the great musical, Man of La Mancha, “Whether the stone hits the pitcher, or the pitcher hits the stone, it’s going to be bad for the pitcher!”