
Police chief said Uber victim “came from the shadows” – don’t believe it - drabiega
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/police-chief-said-uber-victim-came-from-the-shadows-dont-believe-it/
======
pwthornton
If Uber's self-driving cars are no better than the visual acuity of humans,
they shouldn't be on the road. There is no point to this at all if we can't
make robots better than humans.

Self-driving cars should be able to use sensors that pick up stuff better than
human eyes.

I can't believe that radar and LIDAR were completely unable to see this woman
until the visual cameras picked her up. This seems like either a serious flaw
with the sensors or with software. The driver, despite looking down at a
phone, still seemed to react faster than the computer!

I'm not that comfortable with Uber doing self-driving cars. I don't really
consider them a true tech company. They are not built on world-class
engineering and design. They are largely a company built by getting around
legal regulations and getting rid of staff workers. They've done incredible
legal work with regulatory environments.

A company like Google, I think they have the talent and the culture to build
something really good here. A company like GM would understand the stakes at
hand here and would be cautious. Uber just doesn't seem to have the talent,
mission or ethics to be in the self-driving car business. It's no surprise
they are the first company to kill a pedestrian.

~~~
underyx
>There is no point to this at all if we can't make robots better than humans.

How about saving human time that would otherwise be spent on driving?

~~~
pwthornton
This is more an argument for better land-use policy (allowing more density),
more public transportation (proven technology) and more remote work. All of
these much better solve giving humans more time than self-driving cars.

Self-driving cars don't promise to save time. It's still driving. Their
promise -- their only real promise -- is to save lives. And I think saving
tens of thousands of American lives every year is a worthwhile goal.
Worldwide, more than 1 million people die in car crashes every year. Humans
have proven that they can't drive cars well, but we have put up with it
because it is convenient.

I know some people will say that they could work on their way to work, but I
can't do work in a car. Staring at a laptop in a car gives me motion sickness,
along with a lot of other people. And, of course, this would only apply to
people who do computer work in the first place.

As someone who has been in serious car crashes and lost friends to them, I for
one am all for self-driving cars. It's going to be a revolution, but we
shouldn't be testing them on public roads if they are this bad.

~~~
throwawaylolx
>I know some people will say that they could work on their way to work, but I
can't do work in a car.

But some can, and they would benefit from a self-driving car that can drive
_at least as safe_ as themselves. Granted, it'd be great if they could improve
on safety, but I think GP's point is that this is not their only possible use.

~~~
simion314
But why we should allow such a car that is not safe, it could be 10 times
faster but 10 times less safe, for years we are trying to make transport
safer, this included making cars more expensive so why should we go back in
our investment in safer cars because company X wants to be the first on the
market.

------
daveguy
I'm sure the Uber footage is either extremely low dynamic range (and not
similar to human vision) or was modified to make it look darker.

However, the driving footage is from after release of the story. The moon on
the 21st had illumination of ~17%. The night of the accident was the day after
the new moon with an illumination of 1%. Someone needs to film the same
section sometime between April 15 - April 17 to get a more accurate estimate
of the light on that night. I expect video will still show much lighter
conditions than that shown on the suspiciously dark video, but without the
same moon lighting conditions we are comparing apples and oranges.

(accident)
[http://www.moongiant.com/phase/3/18/2018](http://www.moongiant.com/phase/3/18/2018)

(filmed)
[http://www.moongiant.com/phase/3/21/2018](http://www.moongiant.com/phase/3/21/2018)

EDIT: masklinn pointed out the accident occured _before_ the stoplight in the
much more lighted area, not later area where the news crew was filming and was
commented on in the second video. It was near the stoplight with the parking
deck in the background rather than only the long spaced overhead lights.
Incredibly misleading video from the dashcam. Maybe good to know for defense
of the true conditions, but it probably won't make that much difference. _look
at the slideshow_

~~~
masklinn
> However, the driving footage is from after release of the story. The moon on
> the 21st had illumination of ~17%. The night of the accident was the day
> after the new moon with an illumination of 1%.

Most of the illumination from the driving footage clearly comes from the
street lights, not from the moon. In the Uber dashcam footage, the street
lights barely illuminate their own foot, some seem to not even reach the
ground. The phase of the moon is essentially a non-factor.

Not to mention _LIDAR is not affected by external light source_. So the phase
of the moon is _doubly_ irrelevant.

~~~
daveguy
Most, but not all of the illumination. Especially between street lights. That
first video is from a section of the road where the accident did not happen.
You have to go past the stop light where the first video ends to get to the
section where the accident happened (second video).

I understand LIDAR should have handled it, and visible spectrum may not be
much different with and without moon lighting. But I would like to see a
similar conditions comparison to see exactly how bad the video is compared to
actual lighting conditions.

One video pointed out a black splotch _over_ the pedestrian. If you pause and
the video you can easily see it. A very unusual artifact to say the least.

EDIT: see masklinn reply -- the accident occured _before_ the stoplight in the
much more lighted area, not later area where the news crew was filming and was
commented on in the second video. It was near the stoplight with the parking
deck in the background rather than only the long spaced overhead lights.
Incredibly misleading video from the dashcam. Maybe good to know for defense
of the true conditions, but it probably won't make that much difference. _look
at the slideshow_

~~~
masklinn
> That first video is from a section of the road where the accident did not
> happen. You have to go past the stop light where the first video ends to get
> to the section where the accident happened (second video).

You don't need the videos, the slideshow has a comparison of the exact spot on
pictures 1 and 2 (you can see the shoulder bend on the right). Picture 3 (a
few frames back) shows the victim was struck pretty much under the
streetlight.

> One video pointed out a black splotch over the pedestrian. If you pause and
> the video you can easily see it. A very unusual artifact to say the least.

Standard artefact from the sensor bottoming out, as soon as you're below
threshold there's literally no signal anymore.

~~~
daveguy
Oh damn. Thank you for pointing out the slideshow. I hadn't really noticed it.
It was in the well lighted area before the stoplight, not in the darker area
afterward where the news crew was filming and comment was made on the second
video.

Not only does it have brighter street lights, there are illuminated signs and
parking deck lights in the background.

------
antonkm
I think a big problem with this whole debacle is that we're discussing cameras
and lighting, before discussing the actual matter: a person died and someone
is responsible.

It doesn't matter if I were to run someone over when it's dark. I would still
be accountable.

The discussion about footage removes focus from the actual issue which should
be a legal issue, not a technical debugging session.

Edit: Sorry, am not native English speaker. What I meant when I wrote
accountable was that I would have to own up to what happened. Not that I would
get a sentence if it was an accident.

~~~
slap_shot
I don't think this is accurate. I'm not a lawyer or even very knowledgeable
about law, but I would be very surprised if the driver is at fault here. This
is anecdotal, but I know someone who was in an eerily similar accident (as the
driver) and unfortunately killed a person who walked in front of his car.
While tragic, he did nothing wrong and there were no legal repercussions.

I live in NYC, where jaywalking is a way of life, and I've adopted two
policies over the last few years:

1\. Never jaywalk. Just don't do it. Find the appropriate and safe crosswalk,
and wait. 2\. Never assume it is safe to cross a street, even when you have
the right of way. People laugh at me when I look both ways when we have the
right of way, but logic is simple: just because I have the right of way does
not mean the drivers coming from either side are aware of that or are paying
attention.

~~~
fucking_tragedy
I've just approached navigating streets as a pedestrian/cyclist as if I were
invisible, because I might as well be to any driver that hits me with their
vehicle.

------
TheCapeGreek
Everyone who saw the video has said it's the fault of camera for seeming so
dark (since even the street lights have almost no effect anywhere), and
regardless of that AVs work with lidar and such. Where is the telemetry and
analysis? If it didn't see the pedestrian, then why?

~~~
mtgx
And it begs the question: did Uber alter the video?

Will it alter the telemetry, too?

If the Tempe police doesn't get forensics experts on this, they're doing their
job wrong. Uber is already known as a company that tends to hide and destroy
this sort of evidence.

~~~
dekhn
It would be really hard to believe that Uber would do this. There is only
downside, the probability of being caught is high (given they have to hand
over a ton of data streams to the NTSB).

~~~
eddieroger
Uber's history defends the position that they're willing to do things
regardless of the chance of getting caught and being willing to deal with the
fallout later. That's kind of their whole thing - drive in a city no matter
the regulations of taxis and the like, and deal with the bureaucracy after.
Why wouldn't they alter things if given the chance?

------
Steltek
For reference, I found this video over on reddit (from /u/ghdana) of the area.
It looks _very_ different with even a cell phone camera.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XOVxSCG8u0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XOVxSCG8u0)

Edit: I guess this video is also referenced in the article, after Brian's.

~~~
zython
To be fair, cell phone cameras as I recall have a tendency to push the ISO up,
so it potentially could look different IRL (I'm purposefully being vague).

Ideally /u/ghdana would have posted the camera settings which filmed this, so
you could get a better understanding of the situation.

Not that I'm defending UBER on this, as others have said LIDAR and IR in
addition to the cameras should have picked the woman up.

~~~
ksk
>To be fair, cell phone cameras as I recall have a tendency to push the ISO
up, so it potentially could look different IRL (I'm purposefully being vague).

That is true, but raising the ISO for proper (well 18% grey anyway.) exposure
is something pretty much every retail camera made in the past decade does. I
doubt UBER is using some experimental esoteric camera here.

------
marchenko
I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but should we expect the Tempe AZ City
administration to be a neutral source of information in this case? Might they
be biased by their decision to host this experiment in their jurisdiction (in
the sense of anticipating criticism)?

~~~
mieseratte
As an occasional commuter cyclist, I'm well aware of the position cars and
drivers hold in our social pecking order. It's a well known "joke" that if you
want to get away with murder, you do it with a car.

While we should not absolve Uber, including the driver who was too busy
looking at his phone to intervene, I do wonder if a standard driver would have
also been deemed not at fault by the police. The answer is likely, "yes".

~~~
masklinn
> including the driver who was too busy looking at his phone to intervene

I've yet to get any information on one thing though, are safety drivers
operating under the assumption that the car works at SAE2 or at SAE3? Because
if it's the latter, the driver has no cause to keep looking at their phone. If
it's the former, the car should have a deadman's switch to ensure the driver
stay alert.

An other thing that is not clear is whether they were looking at their phone
or at instrumentation (e.g. telemetry or the like).

~~~
ghaff
The safety drivers should theoretically be operating under the assumption that
the self-driving system can fail randomly at any moment. Of course, humans are
not wired as reliable backups to handle random split-second problems when the
system, in fact, works correctly most of the time.

~~~
masklinn
> The safety drivers should theoretically be operating under the assumption
> that the self-driving system can fail randomly at any moment.

Then the car should be equipped with a dead man's switch / vigilance devices
to ensure the driver pays attention, trains have been equipped with these
equipments for _decades_.

> Of course, humans are not wired as reliable backups to handle random split-
> second problems when the system, in fact, works correctly most of the time.

Indeed, but again that is a long-known issue and we've had solutions for a
long time.

------
Humdeee
I'm surprised to hear a top police authority say this. I come from a family of
police and it's always said that when telling your side of the story in a
traffic incident, saying something along the lines of:

"But Officer, they came out of nowhere!"

never really holds up too well for you. It's the same as saying "I flat out
didn't see them, so not my fault." It's quite the opposite in fact... and any
cool-headed person will pick that up. I'm sure the investigation is well
underway in any event.

~~~
avs733
Arizona officials carrying water for corporations is not a new thing by any
rate.

------
JustSomeNobody
[https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/speeding](https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-
driving/speeding)

> Speed also affects your safety even when you are driving at the speed limit
> but too fast for road conditions, such as during bad weather, when a road is
> under repair, _or in an area at night that isn’t well lit_.

This vehicle was _speeding_. Uber is at fault. How is this disputable?

Edit: One More link.

[https://www.123driving.com/dmv/drivers-handbook-speed-
limits](https://www.123driving.com/dmv/drivers-handbook-speed-limits)

> You will need to drive with extra care at night. You cannot see as far ahead
> or to the side, and glare from oncoming cars can reduce your vision even
> more. Follow these guidelines for driving at night:
    
    
        Use your headlights (low beam or high beam) between the hours of sunset and sunrise.
        Low beam headlamps are only effective for speeds up to 20-25 MPH. You must use special care when driving faster than these speeds, since you are unable to detect pedestrians, bicyclists and others.
        High beam headlights can reveal objects up to a distance of at least 450 feet and are most effective for speeds faster than 25 MPH.
        Don't use high-beam headlights within 500 feet of oncoming vehicles.
        If you are behind other vehicles, use low beams when you are within 300 feet of the vehicle ahead.
        When leaving a brightly lit place, drive slowly until your eyes adjust to the darkness.
        If a vehicle comes toward you with high beams, flash your lights to high beam and back to low beam once.
        Don't look directly at oncoming headlights. Instead, watch the right edge of your lane. Look quickly to be sure of the other vehicle's position every few seconds.
        Drive as far to the right as you can if a vehicle with one light comes toward you.

------
jacksmith21006
Would love to see how Google would handle this situation. Have to believe
their algorithm would be smarter and handle.

Remember Google had to deal with bike corner cases a couple of years ago.

"A Cyclist's Track Stand Befuddled One of Google's Self-Driving Cars"

[https://gizmodo.com/a-cyclists-track-stand-totally-
befuddled...](https://gizmodo.com/a-cyclists-track-stand-totally-befuddled-
one-of-googles-1727024285)

------
avs733
There is another aspect of this as well that is important to consider.

I will 100% bet that the police had to interact with/rely on Uber to provide
them with the video and data. With Uber's history, and the importance of this
to the company, can we trust they didn't manipulate the video (i.e., make it
darker)?. In the end, as much distaste as I have for Uber, this isn't even
about them...its about process and chain of evidence.

In a non-autonomous accident if there was a fight between two opposing
drivers, the vehicle manufacturer is a neutral party and it seems reasonable
to rely on them to extract and hand over data. If, however, the fight was
between the driver and the manufacturer (e.g., the driver asserted a failure
of the vehicle) there is no way that the manufacturer would be allowed to
extract the vehicles' data logger. It would be done by an independent third
party.

As these accidents happen (and no matter your perspective on this
one/cars/autonomous vs. human drivers/etc. - they will happen) there needs to
be methodology for extracting data and assessing it from the vehicles that
does not rely on the manufacturer or any other conflict of interest party.

Further, this hole debacle shows how important it is that experts be involved
in these decisions, discussions. The police chief has no knowledge or
experience with the technical details of autonomous vehicles. His statements
have, from the beginning, been irresponsible and inappropriately deferential
to Uber at the expense of a citizen of his town.

The rush for LIDAR/Radar technology makes clear just how much of autonomous
tech relies on the nonvisual range. However, the chief obviously...based on
his statements...is judging performance entirely on the visual range. He is
not an expert. As an ex-Tempe resident, I doubt Tempe has independent
autonomous vehicle experts. I would almost guarantee they are relying on the
companies being truthful and open with them.

That is bad.

~~~
cesarb
> I will 100% bet that the police had to interact with/rely on Uber to provide
> them with the video and data.

For the video released so far, not necessarily. It seems to be from an off-
the-shelf dashcam, which the police most probably not only know how to
download, but also has already done so several times in other accidents. For
the rest of the data (and the video from the self-driving cameras, if it's
stored instead of just used in the control loop and then discarded), I agree
with you that the police (and the NTSB) will probably need the help of the
Uber engineers.

------
dekhn
I'm gonna wait for the NTSB report because they are not armchair journalists
citing misunderstood optics laws.

------
devy
The takeaways from this tragic accident for me are:

1\. We need to have better suited (much better low light performance) frontal
cameras equipped for self-driving cars and dashcams. Be it a dual sensor/lens
setup or whatnot, if Apple can make it for iPhone X for $35 [1], the
technology is available now and shippable now. Compare to the cost of tens of
thousands of the price of a car and hundreds/thousands for the price of
packages/options manufacturers to add on to a new car, that's virtually
nothing.

2\. We need better more sophisticated headlamps and new laws to better suited
for today's technology advancements[2] - something like a 3rd mode of wide
beam on top of hi/low bean modes. From ubiquitous adaptive headlights to
matrix laser beams, these improvement can increase driver visibility and
perhaps save lives in situations like this.

[1] [http://www.businessinsider.com/iphone-x-teardown-parts-
cost-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/iphone-x-teardown-parts-cost-ihs-
markit-2017-11)

[2] [https://blog.dupontregistry.com/mercedes-benz/why-are-
adapti...](https://blog.dupontregistry.com/mercedes-benz/why-are-adaptive-
headlights-illegal-in-the-usa/)

------
logotype
Why do we only have the dashcam videos? I want to see the LIDAR data. Also,
Uber definitively has ways to render all the sensor data into a video which
shows the objects which was detected (or lack of detection).

------
2aa07e2
The car driver was half the time not looking at the road! Who the hell drives
like that.

Jaywalking or not, the victim was clearly a pedestrian (not riding her bike),
the insurance of Uber (Uber itself?) should compensate the victim's relatives.
If it doesn't I expect a huge backslash.

~~~
hmate9
He wasn’t driving.

------
anotheryou
Maybe the took the mid-range from a HDR* video and published it? This way they
technically did not add contrast, but just conveniently dropped all the info
in the shadows to "make it accessible"

* not tone-mapped, I mean what HDR truly stands for

------
thrillgore
Is Uber paying off the police chief to blame the victim?

I'm with the majority here -- the LIDAR should have picked the pedestrian up
and decelerated. Uber's self-driving tech is less safe than a human driver,
and should be shelved.

------
rplnt
There needs to be a process in place for autonomous cars accidents. Required
telemetry and data provided to independent organization (financed by
manufacturers). If it deems the car (hardware or software) was at fault, whole
fleet needs to be immediately disabled until the issue is resolved.

Dead pedestrian here and there won't hurt the companies financially. There's
not much reason for them to push for perfect products. They can just shoot for
99% and account for the rest in damages. Disabling their service will hurt
them.

This needs to be treated like planes, trains, or medical devices are. Not like
consumer device.

------
typeformer
I think it was extremely irresponsible of the officers on the scene to imply
that there was "nothing that could be done" or a lack of fault before a real
investigation had even started!

------
scrumper
The concept of a safety driver in SDC testing needs refining.

The guy here was clearly distracted. He only looks up at the road a fraction
of a second before the crash.

My bet is that he'll be prosecuted as if he were a distracted driver: he's
responsible for the safe operation of the vehicle (otherwise, why's he there
in the first place?). He'll go to prison, probably, and rules will change very
quickly as a result.

Driving a car is an active process, it's fatiguing but not inherently boring
(excepting really long, straight, empty roads through unchanging scenery).
Sitting in a SDC while it drives itself however _is_ boring: there's a well-
researched and well-understood attention deficit problem which nobody seems to
be discussing here.

It's the same thing that makes TSA security screening such a tough thing to
get right, or sentry duty: you can't expect humans to sit for hours passively
monitoring for unpredictable and rare events that they then have to react
decisively to. Brains don't work like that. These safety drivers need short
shifts with frequent breaks, they need a partner, and they need an active
background task that keeps their eyes up and forward and their brain engaged
(giving a commentary, for example).

------
pwaivers
They should release the LIDAR sensor data, so we can learn what the car "saw".
This dashcash is basically irrelevant compared to the sensors on the car.

------
justspamjustin
When I learned to drive, I was taught to slow down when you see that you’re
coming up on lower visibility areas of the road. This could be a turn in the
road, a part of the road that reduces slope or a darker part of the road. I
still do practice this safe precaution. And while the technology is in its
infancy, drivers in an autonomous car should be just as attentive as a driver
in any other car.

------
mping
What seems horrible from a SW engineering point of view is that they probably
didn't QA this scenario. I mean, it's not a corner case, it's basically the
scenario where someone appears in front of the car "all of the sudden".

I just hope engineers working on software that can cause serious injury or
kill someone do the appropriate diligences to ensure this doesn't happen
again.

------
ironjunkie
I don't want to sound like a crazy person here, but could it be that the video
released was edited to look super dark? The difference between the Uber video
and the amateur cellphone videos is striking!

Could it be that the police//Uber employees//municipality have a political
goal to make this look like it was unavoidable? It looks so to me.

------
bitL
It's pretty common to ramp up contrast in cam used for self-driving inputs for
basic computer vision to make lane markers pop up. So such a camera won't have
much chance of detecting a person casually crossing road without any concerns
for traffic. The crash points more to failure in sensor fusion; LiDAR should
have detected it, but clustering algorithm might have either removed it, or
she appeared in too few scanning frames to be reliably detected as an object,
due to heat map thresholding to avoid false positives.

~~~
ksk
But why would they alter the recorded bits? An imaging sensor streams the RAW
data (w/o tone curve). Wouldn't they prefer just storing the RAW bits (which
probably have a higher dynamic range anyway) and then apply various transforms
- contrast, edge-detect, etc.

~~~
bitL
I guess it's speed concerns? Maybe they have a custom ASIC they use to pipe
and adjust images from the camera, achieving optimal contrast? Using CPU for
that is very very slow and self-driving car companies try to push latency down
as much as possible, so it might be a limitation of specialized hardware.

~~~
ksk
Sure, but if they have to process the RAW data anyway, they could easily send
an unaltered copy in parallel to storage for offline use. I guess depending on
the resolution & bitness, they'd want to downsample/compress it to save space.
Heh, anyway its just pure speculation on my part. They probably have a good
reason to do it one particular way...

------
boyaka
Most of the illumination when I drive comes from my headlights. All of it that
I need, no matter how dark or "shadowy" it is (give me a break).

------
TearsInTheRain
A lot of people are focusing on why the car didn't stop or even slow, but what
about the human driver? I feel like this practice of having a human driver
behind the wheel doesn't work as well as we might think it does. It is likely
giving people and legislators a false sense of security if they think a human
has the ability to intervene properly to stop an accident

------
cesarb
Is it possible that the released video was so dark because the dashcam was
behind a tinted windshield? The other dashcam videos from the same place might
be from cars with non-tinted windshields. Of course, any video cameras used as
self-driving sensors would be outside the windshield, so their view would be
clearer.

------
jaragones
I wonder why they don't want to show its LIDAR "video", I thought that all
autonomous vehicle are using it. I agree that a cause of the accident can be
that LIDAR had failed but I wonder why in this kind of technologies they don't
have redundancies system. :/

------
sylvinus
I understand people are focusing on the video because that's all we have at
the moment, but it entirely misses the point: this is primarily a LIDAR
failure. This should have been prevented even with the cameras off.

------
sschueller
Maybe there should be some limits to when these vehicles may travel until they
have proven they can deal with more difficult situations.

Driving at night or in a snow storm is a very difference environment than on a
nice day.

------
lafar6502
We’ll miss the good old times where road accidents were a matter settled
between two humans on equal rights, no a individual vs multi-billion corps and
their army of lawyers

~~~
xapata
When was that? Right now if you are part of an accident, you only have rights
via your insurance company and their lawyers. I suppose there's small claims
court or hiring your own lawyer, but that ain't the same.

~~~
lafar6502
Where I live the insurance company does not act until the case is clear and
it’s known who is guilty and of what. Sometimes it’s just police
documentation, sometimes an investigation and court case. But insurance
company does not represent you in the court so what exactly are you talking
about?

~~~
xapata
If the other person is at fault, your insurance company will in fact go after
them for money. Depends on the plan and the circumstances, I suppose.

~~~
lafar6502
This is their business, not yours. They wouldn’t pay you a penny if they
could, and have whole departments for figuring out how to pay you less

~~~
xapata
So it sounds like status quo ain't "a matter settled between two humans on
equal rights".

~~~
lafar6502
No, your idea of insurance company role is totally wrong. It still you vs
Uber.

~~~
xapata
I'm confused. Are you saying today it's two individuals in contest or today
it's an individual vs Uber?

~~~
lafar6502
No driver to hold responsible, just machine and billion dollar company behind
it. And their lawyers ready to punch a hole in your face... confusing, isn’t
it?

------
dreta
If the car is at fault here, then Uber should bare the full consequences.

At the same time though, the person with the bike had no reflective markings,
wasn’t blind or anything, and was crossing the road without any respect for
the incoming traffic at an unmarked spot. They didn’t even flinch when the car
was about to hit them. The guy in the car looked away for like 5 seconds. He
clearly wasn’t absent-minded. If the visibility wasn’t that bad, any
suspicious activity on the left would have grabbed his attention.

------
perfmode
Where was the LIDAR?

------
gamblor956
The Uber victim did come from the shadows. Arizona gets _dark_ at night,
especially during a new moon. The question isn't why the optical cameras
didn't see her, it's why did the LIDAR failed to detect her?

~~~
lb1lf
AZ gets dark at night. The workaround is for cars to have headlights.

Not knowing the law as it applies for (semi-)autonomous vehicle testing in
Arizona, I am very curious how this one turns out.

Based on my experience driving at night (In Norway, where it also gets pretty
dark), even in rural areas with no street lights, you tend to discover
pedestrians -even the ones not wearing safety reflectors- significantly more
than a second and a half before you cross paths with them.

So - while the vehicle is driving autonomously, there's still a driver (or
whatever we should call it, seeing as they do not drive as such) behind the
wheel.

If the driver had paid attention to the road, rather than her cell phone, this
accident likely wouldn't have happened.

So - who is to blame, legally speaking? The 'driver' for not paying attention?
The coder implementing the control algorithms? The HW engineering team
deciding which sensors to use? Someone else?

This will be a lot simpler when vehicles are 'properly' autonomous - but right
now, it seems AVs simply give the 'driver' all sorts of incentive for not
paying attention, while still not absolving them of responsibility. That's the
worst of both worlds.

~~~
typeformer
Uber is a corporation, so it as a legal entity is liable, any kind of
individual liability is possible to be litigated but very difficult to win.
One problem is that corporate charters once granted are never revoked so
corporations just keep doing terrible things and diffusing the costs of their
actions onto society with minuscule repercussions. You can bet if I was
looking down at my phone and not at the road and then hit a woman in the dark
(all captured on camera) I would be going to jail... But, Uber has done some
really despicable things (stealing the medical records of a rape victim to use
for intimidation), and now they've likely killed someone and no one will ever
see cell time.

------
bhouston
The videos that show everything super bright look like they have their high
beams on, whereas the Uber video looks like the standard headline mode.
Although I can not be completely sure. If that is the case it is apples-to-
oranges.

~~~
KaiserPro
Which might form an excuse if it was a human driver. However the human wasn't
looking at the road. (I can't blame them, its pretty difficult to concentrate
when you are not _actually_ driving) So headlights or not, it's irrelevant.

However the article goes on to explain that dip'd beam headlights don't
dramatically increase your vision.

However you are correct its apples to oranges. The Dashcam sensor is had not
adjusted correctly to the light conditions, or it isn't sensitive enough.
However thats not entirely relevant, as the dashcam doesn't (or at least I
hope it doesn't) form part of the sensor array.

