UBER Driver in deadly crash texting?? but the woman killed was on a bicycle in the dark.

a reply to: face23785
In Oregon, every intersection constitutes a pedestrian crosswalk, whether or not it is marked or controlled by a traffic device. And thus the pedestrian would have the right of wall. Now while I can not find the law that states such, most police in the state of Oregon, including the one I talked to about such, stated that if a person was in the middle of the road drunk, does not give the person the right to hit them.

Having lived in big and small cities, along with very rural areas, sometimes there are no crosswalks, and people do cross the road. I lived in such an area, out in a very rural city, no crosswalks, and it was not uncommon to go walking across or down the road, as there was no other place to walk, and I would have right on the road.

It is not a minor detail about the bike. People on bikes are entitled to use the roads, just like everyone else, including if need be on main roads, where there is not bike paths present. And as irritating as it is, those bikes have the right to be on the road, though it should be in the right lane.

The technology for self navigation has been around for a bit, aircraft use such, however, a pilot has to be present, has to make decisions. And this is new technology, with all of the bugs that go along with it. And as much as many would like, a driver still have to be awake and treating it like they are driving the car, and can not be distracted. And from the video, the driver was clearly distracted and not paying attention at all.

As I pointed out, it was all three. The technology that is new, and there are bugs in the system, the vehicle did not react. The driver who was distracted, and the person who got hit, and ultimately died from such.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
People on bikes are entitled to use the roads, just like everyone else, including if need be on main roads, where there is not bike paths present. And as irritating as it is, those bikes have the right to be on the road, though it should be in the right lane.

Sure, but pedestrians and bicyclists have a duty of care when they're using or crossing the roads. We can't just wander blindly out into traffic because we have the legal right of way and point the finger of blame at the other person when we get run over. Yeah, the monitor could have been paying better attention. But I was taught "look both ways when crossing the street" when I was four.

I'm still going with suicide by car, UBER just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: face23785
In Oregon, every intersection constitutes a pedestrian crosswalk, whether or not it is marked or controlled by a traffic device. And thus the pedestrian would have the right of wall. Now while I can not find the law that states such, most police in the state of Oregon, including the one I talked to about such, stated that if a person was in the middle of the road drunk, does not give the person the right to hit them.

That still doesn't mean pedestrians always have the right of way in Oregon. Again, that's only at intersections. The vast majority of road in the state is not intersection, so most places you can cross a road the vehicles are going to have the right away. Of course the vehicle having the right of way doesn't give you the right to run over pedestrians. Nobody is saying that. It just absolves the vehicle of legal responsibility if the pedestrian is crossing in a place where the vehicle has the right of way (the majority of the road in the state) and the driver had no reasonable chance to slow down or avoid the person.

It is not a minor detail about the bike. People on bikes are entitled to use the roads, just like everyone else, including if need be on main roads, where there is not bike paths present. And as irritating as it is, those bikes have the right to be on the road, though it should be in the right lane.

Given. I shouldn't have said minor detail.

The technology for self navigation has been around for a bit, aircraft use such, however, a pilot has to be present, has to make decisions. And this is new technology, with all of the bugs that go along with it. And as much as many would like, a driver still have to be awake and treating it like they are driving the car, and can not be distracted. And from the video, the driver was clearly distracted and not paying attention at all.

As I pointed out, it was all three. The technology that is new, and there are bugs in the system, the vehicle did not react. The driver who was distracted, and the person who got hit, and ultimately died from such.

I'm not arguing any of that. The vehicle for sure failed to do what it was designed. The sensors should've seen the pedestrian, even in the dark. The driver should have been paying attention, but I doubt it would have made a difference. The local police chief also stated this. As for the driver, it's been reported the driver may have been entering information into a computer, as Uber requires them to do from time to time, so they may have had a legit reason to be looking down. I would've waited until the next light to do whatever I was required to do, unless it's something that absolutely has to be entered at a specific time. If that's the case, Uber might want to rethink that requirement. While the technology is being tested and is unproven, the driver should always have their eyes on the road just like if they were driving it themselves.

Legally, Uber and the driver are unlikely to be held at fault. For all practical purposes, of course the car messed up. However, the ultimate blame unfortunately lies with the pedestrian. As I've pointed out several times, even if you were at a crosswalk and had the right of way (which wasn't the case here), the decision to walk out in front of a speeding car because they're supposed to stop is just suicidal and ultimately on the pedestrian. She had the most information available and the most time to make a sound decision and didn't.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: face23785
In Oregon, every intersection constitutes a pedestrian crosswalk, whether or not it is marked or controlled by a traffic device. And thus the pedestrian would have the right of wall. Now while I can not find the law that states such, most police in the state of Oregon, including the one I talked to about such, stated that if a person was in the middle of the road drunk, does not give the person the right to hit them.

Having lived in big and small cities, along with very rural areas, sometimes there are no crosswalks, and people do cross the road. I lived in such an area, out in a very rural city, no crosswalks, and it was not uncommon to go walking across or down the road, as there was no other place to walk, and I would have right on the road.

It is not a minor detail about the bike. People on bikes are entitled to use the roads, just like everyone else, including if need be on main roads, where there is not bike paths present. And as irritating as it is, those bikes have the right to be on the road, though it should be in the right lane.

The technology for self navigation has been around for a bit, aircraft use such, however, a pilot has to be present, has to make decisions. And this is new technology, with all of the bugs that go along with it. And as much as many would like, a driver still have to be awake and treating it like they are driving the car, and can not be distracted. And from the video, the driver was clearly distracted and not paying attention at all.

As I pointed out, it was all three. The technology that is new, and there are bugs in the system, the vehicle did not react. The driver who was distracted, and the person who got hit, and ultimately died from such.

I'm wondering why the car didn't see the person. The lidar should have picked her up. But her silhouette looked like a partially worn out cyclist lane sign. Could that have taken priority over the fact there was an obstacle there?

i2-prod.mirror.co.uk...
c8.alamy.com...

a reply to: mikell
I disagree it was suicide.
Why bother with the bike then?..if it was suicide the bike is not needed, just walk out.

a reply to: mikell

The video caught me by surprise, she just popped out of the dark, holy! Mind you I likely would of saw her and braked to the left and maybe nailed the bike....

Unless I was texting

By the way. Anyone know if these sensors on the car can function properly in snow and on dirty grimy days? What about when the car in front of you throws up slush or dirt on ur windshield and ur blind till you squirt some fluid and clean up with wipers?
I just don't see these cars ever being reliable enough, God forbid uber keep paying drivers to operate the cars, like the company is having a hard time making a profit now as is

Will be interesting to see who reacted first the car or the human and why the car hit her was it confused by something else. 40 MPH isn't your average city clip.

Maybe the system was updating mine seems to do it at the worst possible time.

Really looking forward to some answers.

An article yesterday blamed the car and driver without thought that the woman screwed up.

And to add, as bad as this is people die all the time in testing but generally not civilians.

It would appear that we need a lot more 'I' in the 'AI' as well as speed of processing. The case presented could create a conflict in processing IE swerving requires analysis of surroundings and relative directions + velocities of potential obstructions like a vehicle or whatever in the area being swerved into. Weighting factors would be included considerations like risk to the Ai's passengers, passengers of any vehicle in the adjacent lane etc versus the risk to the person in immediate danger (the pedestrian). The decision making could cause a momentary pause and the AI could also decide that the least risky solution is to hit the single pedestrian (all comes down to the programming plus accumulated data).


Typical speed limit here for a roadway like the one the accident happened on is 80km/hr which is around 50mph. That amounts to a little more than 70 feet per second so any delay in processing to decide an avoidance strategy and implementing it could be catastrophic.

Trains hit pedestrians. Peds fault.