Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

This [1] has video from the dashcam as well as commercial video from news crews immediately on the scene. Keep in mind the news video is heavily lit from all the flashing lights. It's not as dark as the Uber video makes it look, but it's also nowhere near what you'd call "very well lit" especially given that the pedestrian was wearing all dark.

Something that stands out to me on ars clips is that the street lights look like fireballs, even from a distance. I'd guess they have their brightness or some other setting pumped way up. Also looks like the drivers are cruising with brights and/or halogens.

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufNNuafuU7M



> This [1] has video from the dashcam as well as commercial video from news crews immediately on the scene. Keep in mind the news video is heavily lit from all the flashing lights. It's not as dark as the Uber video makes it look, but it's also nowhere near what you'd call "very well lit"

1. It absolutely is. The specific spot (00:33 in the Kaufman video) is clear as day on a cellphone.

2. Visibility doesn't even have any relevance in the first-place, self-driving systems don't rely on visible-light cameras, there is no obstacle in the middle of the road, there is no fog, there is no rain, the self-driving system had full and perfect visibility all along.

> especially given that the pedestrian was wearing all dark.

Given how well-lit the road is, that would have made them more visible against the background, not less. Again not that it has any relevance.

> Something that stands out to me on ars clips is that the street lights look like fireballs, even from a distance. I'd guess they have their brightness or some other setting pumped way up.

Yeah, sure, who'd think a camera with a finite and middling dynamic range (such as a cellphone's camera) would try to actually capture information at night and thus saturate on bright direct light sources.

> Also looks like the drivers are cruising with brights and/or halogens.

Yes of course, a rando would equip their car with an omnidirectional halogen which somehow magically brightly lights up the roadside but doesn't move with their car. You've certainly cracked the code here.


2. Visibility doesn't even have any relevance in the first-place

It has relevance in showing that the pedestrian was failing to exercise their duty of care and was thus at fault. Jaywalking at night wearing a black shirt is pretty negligent. Jaywalking even in the day is negligent in AZ, but at night, across a major artery, it's crazy.

Unless you are going to argue that they knew it was a self-driving car, and so thought that the car would see them in the dark. But they apparently didn't even know a car was there, so that's a tough sell. They didn't even look if a car was coming.

A lot of people here are having a hard time coming to grips with the fact that a pedestrian has responsibilities and can be at fault in a collision with a car -- e.g. that the pedestrian doesn't automatically have the right of way or a right to be avoided every time they step into a street. I get that this is a tough concept for a lot of people to internalize, but if you're going to be arguing that someone should be charged, then at least the broad outlines of the law in AZ need to be understood.


I don't think people are arguing that a pedestrian has an absolute "right to be avoided every time they step into a street". But many of us (I think) do believe that a driver -- or an autonomous driving system -- does have some responsibility to take reasonable care to avoid accidents, regardless of who has the right of way.

While the concept of right of way may often have a bearing on who is held at fault for an accident, it does not -- or at least should not -- entirely absolve the driver of any responsibility to drive attentively and carefully in all circumstances.

In this case, it does sounds to me as though the pedestrian was at fault -- particularly in the context of AZ law -- but it also sounds as though both Uber and the "safety" driver were seriously negligent in their responsibilities, and their negligence was a major contributory factor in the pedestrian's death. They should be held to account.




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: