Uber reaches settlement with family of woman killed by its self-driving vehicle

[midian182]

The family of Elaine Herzberg, the woman who was killed by one of Uber’s self-driving vehicles, has reached a settlement with the ride-hailing company. The agreement means a potential legal battle has now been avoided.

The collision between Uber’s autonomous Volvo and Herzberg took place in Tempe, Arizona, on March 18. The 49-year-old was pushing her bicycle across the road when she was hit. She later died in hospital, becoming the first person to be killed by an autonomous vehicle. A video released by police shows the moments leading up to the crash.

It wasn’t clear if Herzberg’s family had intended to launch a lawsuit against Uber. The victim’s stepdaughter, Tina Marie Herzberg White, had said, “Ain’t no amount of money in the world going to bring her back.”

Reuters reports that Cristina Perez Hesano, an attorney with the firm of Bellah Perez in Glendale, Arizona, said “the matter has been resolved” between Uber and Herzberg’s husband and daughter.

The terms of the settlement have not been revealed. Bellah Perez said Herzberg’s family has no further comment on the matter as they consider it resolved.

Following the accident, Uber took all its self-driving cars off the roads in the four cities they operate. Earlier this week, it was revealed that the company wouldn’t be reapplying for a permit to test its self-driving cars in California.

Other companies with autonomous car projects, including Toyota and Nvidia, have temporarily halted self-driving car tests on public roads. The chip maker has been quick to point out that Uber does not use its self-driving platform architecture.

“Uber does not use Nvidia drive technology. Uber develops its own sensing and drive technology,” said Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/73931-uber-reaches-settlement-family-woman-killed-self-driving.html

 

[Panda218]

Jaywalking is bad. Even a non automated vehicle would of hit and killed the lady. I'd be curious to see what the settlement was.

 

[Skjorn]

Jaywalking is bad. Even a non automated vehicle would of hit and killed the lady. I'd be curious to see what the settlement was.

lmao thats it? "Jaywalking is bad" The footage was crap, no one was paying a lick of attention. Any normal person paying attention would have seen her in the shadows, maybe not know immediately it was a woman walking her bike left to right but they would have recognized something in the roadway and have been cautious on the approach.
Notice how pitch black the dark spots are in this video. Your eyes are not that crappy, from the very beginning they compared the footage to the capabilities of the human eye..which is just fkng nonsense.

 

[Kibaruk]

Notice how pitch black the dark spots are in this video. Your eyes are not that crappy, from the very beginning they compared the footage to the capabilities of the human eye..which is just fkng nonsense.

The vehicle/driver were not at fault here, so yes, jaywalking is dead-like bad.

 

[Panda218]

lmao thats it? "Jaywalking is bad" The footage was crap, no one was paying a lick of attention. Any normal person paying attention would have seen her in the shadows, maybe not know immediately it was a woman walking her bike left to right but they would have recognized something in the roadway and have been cautious on the approach.
Notice how pitch black the dark spots are in this video. Your eyes are not that crappy, from the very beginning they compared the footage to the capabilities of the human eye..which is just fkng nonsense.

I'm sorry to have triggered you, but its truly how I feel about the situation. Next time maybe use a crosswalk instead of walking across a pitch black road at night. I also didn't see a helmet or bike lights. If you're going to use your bicycle at night at least be safe about it.

 

[yRaz]

lmao thats it? "Jaywalking is bad" The footage was crap, no one was paying a lick of attention. Any normal person paying attention would have seen her in the shadows, maybe not know immediately it was a woman walking her bike left to right but they would have recognized something in the roadway and have been cautious on the approach.
Notice how pitch black the dark spots are in this video. Your eyes are not that crappy, from the very beginning they compared the footage to the capabilities of the human eye..which is just fkng nonsense.

I would like to point out 2 things. First off, when I'm driving I am not watching the sides of the road for people crossing unless I'm in town. Second, by the time I would have seen here walking into the street I would not have been able to both react and stop in time.

I also think she didn't take the time to look both ways to cross the road or else she might not have ran in front of a car.

 

[GreyFoxx]

lmao thats it? "Jaywalking is bad" The footage was crap, no one was paying a lick of attention. Any normal person paying attention would have seen her in the shadows, maybe not know immediately it was a woman walking her bike left to right but they would have recognized something in the roadway and have been cautious on the approach.
Notice how pitch black the dark spots are in this video. Your eyes are not that crappy, from the very beginning they compared the footage to the capabilities of the human eye..which is just fkng nonsense.

I would like to point out 2 things. First off, when I'm driving I am not watching the sides of the road for people crossing unless I'm in town. Second, by the time I would have seen here walking into the street I would not have been able to both react and stop in time.

I also think she didn't take the time to look both ways to cross the road or else she might not have ran in front of a car.

You should always be looking for hazards, who on earth gave you a license.

 

[yRaz]

You should always be looking for hazards, who on earth gave you a license.

oh, please, don't try taking the high road(pun intended) and act like you've never stopped giving your full attention to driving when on a long, empty stretch of road.

 

[GreyFoxx]

oh, please, don't try taking the high road(pun intended) and act like you've never stopped giving your full attention to driving when on a long, empty stretch of road.

High road? it's called road safety... people can and do die because of *****s like you.

 

[yRaz]

High road? it's called road safety... people can and do die because of *****s like you.

I've been driving for 12 years and never been an in accident. if you are saying you've never looked at your phone or stopped giving driving your full attention you are an outright liar. It's human nature and they only reason you're using that to in try to attack me is that you don't have anything to refute my original point. Someone coming out of the shadows like that unexpectedly, especially in that situation, is an accident waiting to happen. She walked in front of a car, it was an empty stretch of road with no other cars on it. There is no way that she wouldn't have heard or seen the lights from that car if she even bothered to look. Many people, tech companies and even highway safety officials say the accident wasn't Uber's fault. Intel and Tesla have said that their self driving tech couldn't have avoided the accident and at best it would have reacted only a second or so sooner.

And, lets not forget the guy in the vehicle. The person alive is going to have to live with that for the rest of his life. Yes, he may have been distracted but the people who are not ignorant among us know that even with his full attention the accident was unavoidable.

There is a reason jay walking laws exist, it's because we know you can't fight the laws of physics. There are things such as stopping distances and human reaction time. And, while this is tragic, I'm just going to come out and say it. It's the womans dumba$$ fault for not looking both ways before crossing the road. That has been engraved into our heads since our parents first took on walks outside. She had better odds of seeing the car than the car seeing her. Further, judging by the way her family talks in the statement they aren't the most intelligent bunch. A little bit of common sense on her part and she would be alive

 

[Kenrick]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum


I wonder what the settlement is given that the lady was homeless and she has a daughter.

 

[GreyFoxx]

I've been driving for 12 years and never been an in accident. if you are saying you've never looked at your phone or stopped giving driving your full attention you are an outright liar. It's human nature and they only reason you're using that to in try to attack me is that you don't have anything to refute my original point. Someone coming out of the shadows like that unexpectedly, especially in that situation, is an accident waiting to happen. She walked in front of a car, it was an empty stretch of road with no other cars on it. There is no way that she wouldn't have heard or seen the lights from that car if she even bothered to look. Many people, tech companies and even highway safety officials say the accident wasn't her fault. Intel and Tesla have said that their self driving tech couldn't have avoided the accident and at best it would have reacted only a second or so sooner.

And, lets not forget the guy in the vehicle. The person alive is going to have to live with that for the rest of his life. Yes, he may have been distracted but the people who are not ignorant among us know that even with his full attention the accident was unavoidable.

There is a reason jay walking laws exist, it's because we know you can't fight the laws of physics. There are things such as stopping distances and human reaction time. And, while this is tragic, I'm just going to come out and say it. It's the womans dumba$$ fault for not looking both ways before crossing the road. That has been engraved into our heads since our parents first took on walks outside. She had better odds of seeing the car than the car seeing her. Further, judging by the way her family talks in the statement they aren't the most intelligent bunch. A little bit of common sense on her part and she would be alive

That's called luck given that you don't pay attention or look for hazards. My reply had nothing to do with this post, I'm not for or against. My reply was to tell you that you should ALWAYS pay attention and look for hazards.

 

[yRaz]

That's called luck given that you don't pay attention or look for hazards. My reply had nothing to do with this post, I'm not for or against. My reply was to tell you that you should ALWAYS pay attention and look for hazards.

okay, true, but you're arguing human nature and I will continue to call you a liar if you say you don't let your attention lapse while driving on occasion. I would like to point out that you haven't tried to refute that statement either.

 

[Prosercunus]

Jaywalkers are at fault where I live with little exception on main drags of the streets. A woman spent time in intensive care for being hit while crossing several dozen feet from any sort of crosswalk and was ticketed for jaywalking regardless. I have personally had a homeless person run into the front bumper of my vehicle and damage it while doing the crackhead shuffle through lanes of busy traffic nowhere near a crosswalk. I say they hit me because they were sprinting at a greater speed than I was driving. After chasing them down on foot I insisted the officer ticket them for jaywalking which he reluctantly did. What I got out of the trouble was a cracked bumper that is well over 1k to fix (have to replace the entire bumper for a small crack) with no remedy so now I am stuck with damage to a new vehicle with no remedy for doing nothing but going home after work.

I feel sympathy for people that have been killed jaywalking because it's not a matter of who is right and wrong, a persons life has been lost... but Jaywalking/Jaywalkers piss me off to no end and many of them are just too damn lazy to walk a bit further down the block and use the lights.

 

[cmolinap]

I'm curious about two questions.

The first one: Was the right way and place to cross the street, or no matter where I cross the street without any responsibility on my part?

The second one: What would be the probability that the same accident had been given with a car driven by a human?

 

[cliffordcooley]

The first one: Was the right way and place to cross the street, or no matter where I cross the street without any responsibility on my part?

I'm not positive as to what you are asking.

The second one: What would be the probability that the same accident had been given with a car driven by a human?

The police report has already made that comparison, by stating the same outcome would have likely happened with a human driver. Therefor the case was treated in the same manor, as if there was a human driver. It is basically the media keeping the story alive.

On a final note: I really do not like the idea of what this could mean. The first accident with an autonomous vehicle and there was a payout regardless of blame. Makes me wonder how many others might take their chances with death in hopes of getting a payout.

 

[davislane1]

Two types of comments in this thread: Ones from people who have obviously driven a lot and ones from those who clearly haven't. Jaywalking is illegal for a reason. It should also be illegal to sue a company if your family member is killed by their autonomous vehicle while jaywalking. Sadly, there is no justice in this world.

 

[cartera]

Two types of comments in this thread: Ones from people who have obviously driven a lot and ones from those who clearly haven't. Jaywalking is illegal for a reason. It should also be illegal to sue a company if your family member is killed by their autonomous vehicle while jaywalking. Sadly, there is no justice in this world.

I've not looked into the case at all but the article states 'It wasn't clear if the family intended to sue' implying the had not sued.

I would imagine the payout was to counter any lawsuit happening due to the press being all over it and potentially finding something which could be construed as blameworthy. Now if anything does come up there isn't a costly legal battle with the family because they settled out of court.

 

[Godel]

Both parties are at fault. The woman was jaywalking and the car made no attempt to brake even though the woman was directly in front of it for nearly a second..

 

[wiyosaya]

I've said it once before, so I might as well say it again - everyone here saying jaywalking is bad has done it at least once in their lives. Yep. It is illegal, but anyone who says that they have never done so is lying.

 

[Skjorn]

lmao thats it? "Jaywalking is bad" The footage was crap, no one was paying a lick of attention. Any normal person paying attention would have seen her in the shadows, maybe not know immediately it was a woman walking her bike left to right but they would have recognized something in the roadway and have been cautious on the approach.
Notice how pitch black the dark spots are in this video. Your eyes are not that crappy, from the very beginning they compared the footage to the capabilities of the human eye..which is just fkng nonsense.

I would like to point out 2 things. First off, when I'm driving I am not watching the sides of the road for people crossing unless I'm in town. Second, by the time I would have seen here walking into the street I would not have been able to both react and stop in time.

I also think she didn't take the time to look both ways to cross the road or else she might not have ran in front of a car.

Its not about whether the car could have came to a complete stop in time. Swerving is a choice too..so are better cameras on the self driving cars. If the footage was any good I'm sure all the officials would have a different say.

You should always be looking for hazards, who on earth gave you a license.

oh, please, don't try taking the high road(pun intended) and act like you've never stopped giving your full attention to driving when on a long, empty stretch of road.

Not 8 out of10 seconds like this "safety driver" did. This was also a road in the city it looked like to me. Not a long stretch of empty road.

That's called luck given that you don't pay attention or look for hazards. My reply had nothing to do with this post, I'm not for or against. My reply was to tell you that you should ALWAYS pay attention and look for hazards.

okay, true, but you're arguing human nature and I will continue to call you a liar if you say you don't let your attention lapse while driving on occasion. I would like to point out that you haven't tried to refute that statement either.

Can I point out that you keep calling keep people liars? Im going to go ahead and call you a liar on the fact that you know for a certain fact that you would not of had time to react or even or even detect a very large object, walking at constant speed, not completely out of sight but under some light of a street light, albeit not the full center of its cast. I can pretty much ignore everything you've argued against for just having such strong faith in believing we are liars when you and everyone here knows that is not a factual statement and no way to be proven.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Its not about whether the car could have came to a complete stop in time.

It is about the woman that decided to cross a road without it being clear. Night time is the safest time to cross highways. You can see vehicles coming before you can actually see them, because of all the light they emit from their headlights.

People keep talking about the driver and the car seeing the pedestrian. Why did the pedestrian not see the car? That is my question.

 

[yRaz]

Its not about whether the car could have came to a complete stop in time. Swerving is a choice too..so are better cameras on the self driving cars. If the footage was any good I'm sure all the officials would have a different say.
Not 8 out of10 seconds like this "safety driver" did. This was also a road in the city it looked like to me. Not a long stretch of empty road.
Can I point out that you keep calling keep people liars? Im going to go ahead and call you a liar on the fact that you know for a certain fact that you would not of had time to react or even or even detect a very large object, walking at constant speed, not completely out of sight but under some light of a street light, albeit not the full center of its cast. I can pretty much ignore everything you've argued against for just having such strong faith in believing we are liars when you and everyone here knows that is not a factual statement and no way to be proven.

Do you drive?

 

[Skjorn]

It is about the woman that decided to cross a road without it being clear. Night time is the safest time to cross highways. You can see vehicles coming before you can actually see them, because of all the light they emit from their headlights.

People keep talking about the driver and the car seeing the pedestrian. Why did the pedestrian not see the car? That is my question.

uhhh what? lol . I have had people that have been watching me drive down the street on a dark night, jumped out in front of me on purpose from the sidewalk, I knew I would never stop and only swerving could avoid it.

Do you drive?

Yea I just got a new car registered today. I try not to get tunnel vision like you, you know, pay attention to my surroundings, keep aware while I drive my metal machine down the road. It is called an emergency lane change, learn to drive.

 

[yRaz]

Yea I just got a new car registered today. I try not to get tunnel vision like you, you know, pay attention to my surroundings, keep aware while I drive my metal machine down the road. It is called an emergency lane change, learn to drive.

I don't know how having your car registered is relevant, but okay. There are good drivers, there are bad drivers, but no one is a PERFECT DRIVER. I'm calling you a liar because I admit to my human nature and will fess up to the fact that I, myself, am not a perfect driver. I'm sure anyone with any sizable amount of driving experience will admit they looked at their phone, accidentally ran a stop sign or went too fast. You're trying to use the fact that I'm HONEST about my driving habits and how people drive in general to discredit me.

Not only that, you are trying to use the fact that I admit to distracted driving to try to say that the accident would have been avoided if the driver behind the wheel was giving it their full attention. I gave that video my full attention and I could not have reacted in time to stop. Swerving is ALSO dangerous. what if you swerve out of instinct and hit someone else instead? What if you wreck into a guard rail and kill yourself because some ***** wanted to walk out in front of you? That stuff really does happen.

I also want to see how you got "in town" from that video. It looks like a video of a 2 lane highway leading INTO town, but not in town. I also want you to make the case that Tesla, Intel, the police and the highway safety association are all wrong in saying that it wasn't the Uber's fault. Please, give us your infinite wisdom

Hence the reason I say you're full of it. If you think you've never made a mistake while driving or let your attention lapse then you are one of the most dangerous drivers on the road.