
Pedestrian fatally crushed between two parked cars after one started remotely - luu
https://gothamist.com/news/pedestrian-fatally-crushed-between-two-parked-cars-after-one-vehicle-started-remotely
======
personjerry
FYI if you didn't catch it, the car was from 2002. This isn't about the same
AI driving we usually see here.

~~~
fergie
Right, but the moral question is the same: Who's responsibility is it when an
automated vehicle kills somebody- the operator or the manufacturer?

~~~
nkrisc
The operator. People seem to have forgotten that when they get in their car
they are driving heavy machinery and have a great deal of power and
responsibility. They take it for granted.

After all, the operator deployed the autonomous vehicle and should be
responsible for what it does. If they aren't familiar with its capabilities
and risks, they should not deploy such a vehicle unless they are willing to
bear the responsibility for whatever it might do. Until such a time autonomous
vehicles have free will and can be held accountable for their actions, the
operator who deployed it assumes that accountability.

This isn't even a new concept. If I let my dog loose in the park and it bites
someone, I'm responsible for it. We don't hold dogs responsible for their
actions, we hold the owner who "deployed" it responsible.

I'll cede that things are a little murkier when manufacturers are pushing OTA
updates to vehicles that change their behavior. But there's no reason the
operator and the manufacturer can't share responsibility at a split decided in
court.

~~~
dwild
One day we won't be able to drive at all, it will be all self driving, and at
that point, you'll no longer be able to do anything to avoid an accident. That
would shift the default responsibility to the manufacturer and then split it
with the owner if he bear a bit of responsibility too (like missing
maintenance).

You forget that we live in a society where we need people to use cars. Nothing
force you to have a dog, nothing force you to let him loose either in a park.
I hope one day it will no longer be a necessity and public transit will
replace that need, but sadly, in most cities, it's pretty far from being able
to.

~~~
foxyv
I don't think they are saying "Most people shouldn't drive cars" so much as
"We need to make irresponsible driving much more of a big deal."

It seems like people don't take their responsibilities as drivers very
seriously while pedestrians, motorcyclists, and cyclists are being killed and
maimed as a result. All without much consequence to the drivers who create
such an unsafe condition. Then when you ask motorists to drive responsibly
they rage out at you trying to shift blame to someone else.

~~~
dwild
> I don't think they are saying "Most people shouldn't drive cars" so much as
> "We need to make irresponsible driving much more of a big deal."

I don't see how you could interpret my comment as believing that was the
subject.

I'm not arguing about people not taking responsibility either. I'm arguing
that one day, we will no longer even have enough control over a car to be able
to be responsible for it.

In the current state of "self-driving car" (which is closer to a fancy cruise
control) I believe you are entirely responsible for it.

~~~
foxyv
I was referring to this:

> You forget that we live in a society where we need people to use cars.

------
PinguTS
That is the reason why in Europe this feature is strictly forbidden. Even blue
light vehicles needed to be started explicitly with the driver in seat and the
driver has to follow a procedure if he wants to leave and lock the car with
engine running. In blue light vehicles a running engine will support the blue
light to run longer like when the car is used as a blocker in an accident
situation on a highway.

~~~
tjansen
That's not true, at least in Germany. Idling your engine to heat up the car is
not allowed (if you want to heat up your car you need an auxilliary heater
which is sold as an option or as aftermarket modification), so most car brands
do not offer remote start. But European Cadillacs offer that feature, and if
you import an US model, you can also have it.

~~~
teekert
What is the reason for this? I do this every morning the car has frozen
over... I turn on the engine, heating, AC, windshield heating, back windows
heating, "keep the air inside"-switch and go back inside for 3-5 min.

~~~
joecool1029
Two reasons this is bad:

1\. Emissions, catalytic converters and such will not reach full operating
temp, so it dumps a lot more emissions than when it's up to operating temp.
Diesels were even worse in this regard cause the particulate filter plugs up
when idling and then needs to trigger fuel wasting regen cycles.

2\. Engine wear/damage. Oil pressures usually don't come up enough to properly
lubricate components on the engine while cold idling for long periods of time.
(Like, after the rpm's settle back down) This adds unnecessary wear. Should
really only run an engine long enough to bring up initial oil pressure and
then take it easy in it until it's up to full operating temp. (This is because
parts expand at different rates, so pushing a cold engine hard will oftentimes
blow seals)

~~~
swiley
The second one isn’t a good reason to make something _illegal._

For some reason that doesn’t sound so crazy for Germany though. I’m not sure
why.

~~~
readarticle
It doesn’t sound out of the ordinary for any of the countries on the continent
to my ears, different culture and all that.

------
userbinator
_Several bystanders managed to push the car backwards, police said, but "in
the course of doing so, the vehicle rolled forward once again and pinned the
pedestrian between the two vehicles once more."_

...and with even more force, since the car now had a bit more distance to
build up some speed. One wonders whether he would've survived if they had left
him there, and it was the second blow that killed him, since the fact that
they were able to push it back suggests it was probably an automatic left in
neutral with nothing more than the idle torque. If it was a manual, stopping
it or pushing it backwards would've already stalled the engine. I suppose
another lesson here is that if you ever have to push a car out of the way,
chock the wheels afterwards, or otherwise try to prevent it from moving again.

I'm also surprised that was enough to kill.

Edit: downvoters, explain yourselves please.

~~~
frjams
Emergency Medical Technician here (from France). Disclaimer: I'm just
speculating as I have no specific knowledge of what happened in this
particular accident.

Depending on the height of the bumpers involved, I would suspect several
possible problems: one or both femoral arteries severed; or both femurs
fractured; or the pelvis fractured; or some combination of these.

Even if the arteries were untouched, fractures of both femurs or the pelvis
cause life threatening blood loss as these are heavy bones which have major
vascularisation (to allow blood cells generated in the marrow to enter the
blood stream). A closed femur fracture is a 1000 mL to 1500 mL loss of blood
(per femur). An open femur fracture is double that. A pelvic fracture can go
to 5000 mL (approximately the total volume of blood in the average adult
male).

In the field, major lower limb arterial bleeding can be controlled with
tourniquets; femur fractures can be somewhat reduced with traction splints;
pelvic fractures can be somewhat stablised with pelvic compression devices...
However all of these scenarios are bad news for the patient and require rapid
evacuation and surgical intervention (ideally in less than 1 hour from the
time of injury) to have a chance of saving the person's life. RIP and
condolences to patient's family.

~~~
tyingq
Here's a picture of a person standing next to a 2002 is300:
[http://www.billswebspace.com/lexus2.JPG](http://www.billswebspace.com/lexus2.JPG)

Looks like it would pin you just above the knees if you were her height.

~~~
frjams
I agree the victim was probable pinned at knee level for the initial trauma.
However according to the article, bystanders were able to push the car back
and then it rolled forward again pinning the victim a second time. Given that
he had just (probably) had his knees injured, it's possible he was much lower
to the ground during the second impact: if he were sitting or crouching, then
he could have suffered pelvic, abdominal, or thoracic injury, all of which are
life threatening. Anyway, all of this is speculation without confirmed
details.

(Edit: typos.)

~~~
frjams
One added datapoint (not sure how accurate, but it sounds consistent):
according to a BBC report of the incident [1], "Mr Kosanovich was taken to
hospital with severe trauma to his torso and legs".

[1]
[https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50756243](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50756243)

------
JoeMattie
This sounds like someone installed an auto start system in their manual
transmission car and bypassed the neutral sensor.

~~~
ComputerGuru
I’m always confused when someone parks my car and I find they parked it in
first rather than neutral plus the handbrake (High gradients excepted, where
both should be used regardless of preference). People that learn it one way
will never do it the other.

(Also, yes, the 2002 IS300 was available in stick.)

~~~
epanchin
In the UK where stick is normal, we’re taught to park in gear + handbrake.

The handbrake can start slipping when the brakes cool and the car could roll,
so both are necessary, especially on a hill.

~~~
StrangeSound
Anecdotally [UK], I can't say that I nor anyone that I've noticed ever park in
gear. With parking on hills being the only exception.

~~~
zelos
My UK driving instructor told me I should park with the car in _reverse_ gear
if you're pointing down a hill. I was never quite sure of the logic behind
that.

~~~
wccrawford
Someone above was worried about "running the engine in reverse" when using
reverse gear, so I'm guessing the idea is to match the direction the car will
roll if something happens.

------
caymanjim
I wonder if this car had an after-market remote start system installed? I
can't imagine that an official Lexus system would behave like this. I suppose
there could be a defective sensor or something involved, but you'd think it
would have sufficiently-tested failsafes.

~~~
beamatronic
Model year 2002 for both cars. There’s more to the story.

------
adim86
The police should investigate if the car system has been modified. That car
was going to have a collision with the car in front of it, even if the boy was
not there so something is very wrong here. I am no lawyer and we have not
heard the other angles of the story but it seems plausible that someone is
liable for this car behaving strangely

------
consp
What is the point of remote start anyway? Heating up the engine? That is
wasteful. Cooling down via airco? Open the Windows and wait 30 seconds or
disconnect the airco system from the engine altogether as a design choice and
add a bit beefier accumulator. I seriously do not get why you need it. Maybe
someone can enlighten me

Edit: completely forgot about really cold winters...

~~~
neckardt
The point is heating up the car so it's warm when you get inside. I don't have
this feature and I live in the northern US. In the winter the car is freezing
for the first 3 minutes as there is no heat until the engine warms up. Being
able to start the car from the other side of the parking lot would increase my
comfort by a large amount.

~~~
lm28469
> In the winter the car is freezing for the first 3 minutes as there is no
> heat until the engine warms up.

If this isn't the epitome of a first world problem... Imagine the man power,
resources and money spend so that we can avoid being cold for 3 minutes.

~~~
michaelcampbell
Or 15, or 30 or more; and not paying attention to driving as well as you could
because of the extreme discomfort of having to do so in double-digit below
freezing temperatures.

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
Surely you were wandering around outside in these exact same temperatures only
moments before?

~~~
michaelcampbell
Not in my garage, no. And even if so, for a few seconds.

------
perfunctory
From the article:

> An owner's manual cautions: “NEVER remotely start the engine if you are
> unaware of the circumstances surrounding the vehicle as it may cause a life-
> threatening situation for those located in the vehicle’s vicinity.”

------
slowhand09
Both cars from 2002 tells me the onwers are probably friends, members of the
same club, car modders, etc. A remote start on a 2002 is almost certainly an
aftermarket add-on. And to move while/after starting, it was almost certainly
a manual transmission. And incorrectly installed. Auto-start on manual trans
cars require the vehicle be in neutral with the parking brake on.

------
akmarinov
If this was a Tesla, it would’ve said “Tesla starts on its own and kills a
person”, but since it’s a Lexus - no one cares.

~~~
manmal
I'm pretty sure the Tesla would stop on the slightest perception of any
impact. Summon is also super slow.

~~~
londons_explore
Detecting collisions reliably is actually really hard - especially minor
collisions against soft things like people.

I predict that if self driving cars do get widely deployed, the number of 'hit
and runs' they do because they couldn't detect they had collided will be very
high, even if the overall accident rate is low.

~~~
manmal
I don’t believe that. The 360 degree view provided by multiple cameras makes
measuring proximity to close objects easy. Look at sentry mode recordings,
it’s very obvious on the feed when a person touches the car.

------
brokentone
Just watched a Def Con video where Jmaxxz self-installs a remote-start system.
Lots of interesting details about what could have gone wrong.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8SG2V3n4-U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8SG2V3n4-U)

------
tus88
And how many people have been killed between two cars because someone forget
to pull the parking brake on a hill? A lot more than this way I am guessing.

~~~
mongol
Given that cars have been around for over 100 years, yes most likely

------
starpilot
It begins.

~~~
ishi
It's an accident caused by something getting turned on at the wrong time. Is
it any different than, for example, someone turning on the power without
knowing that an electrician is currently doing some work, thereby causing him
to get electrocuted?

~~~
pmontra
It is, because there are always pedestrians and other cars around the streets.
They are more difficult to control especially if you're not looking. I'm
pretty confident that I don't kill anybody if I turn on a light switch now.
I'm pretty sure something bad would happen if I'd start my car remotely in
gear and with no handbrake.

