Uber CEO Halts All Autonomous Car Tests After Deadly Crash

Update: Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi tweeted of the "incredibly sad news"...

*  *  *

As we detailed earlier, Tempe, Arizona police report that a self-driving Uber vehicle was in autonomous mode when it was involved in a deadly crash overnight.

As ABC15 reports, the crash occurred near Mill Avenue and Curry Road early Monday morning.

The Uber vehicle was reportedly headed northbound when a woman walking outside of the crosswalk was struck.

The woman was taken to the hospital where she died from her injuries.

Tempe Police says the vehicle was in autonomous mode at the time of the crash and a vehicle operator was also behind the wheel.

Police added in a statement that the woman’s “next of kin has not been notified yet so her name is not being released at this time. Uber is assisting and this is still an active investigation.”

In a brief statement from an Uber spokesperson, they confirm:

“We are fully cooperating with local authorities in their investigation of this incident.”

And Bloomberg reports that Uber will now halt all autonomous car-testing in all cities (including San Francisco, Phoenix, and Pittsburgh).

Two questions come to mind - was the women crossing the road on Facebook at the time (Zuckerberg's fault) and/or was the car hacked by Russia? (Putin's fault).

This is the first pedestrian killed by an autonomous vehicle.

As Tiffany Li - (@tiffanycli) notes, who should be liable for this death? Uber? The car manufacturer? The software programmers? Tech lawyers have debated this question for decades. If this goes to trial, we'll soon have an answer.

Comments

Billy the Poet glenlloyd Mon, 03/19/2018 - 13:01 Permalink

Woman claims self-driving Uber struck her car, left the scene
Pittsburgh, Mar 6, 2018

A woman is questioning whether Uber’s self-driving cars are ready for the road after she says one of them struck her vehicle last month.

Jessica Mclemore said she really didn’t' give the test cars too much thought until the night of Feb, 24 when she said one crashed into her car.

http://www.wpxi.com/news/top-stories/woman-claims-self-driving-uber-str…

In reply to by glenlloyd

mkkby IH8OBAMA Mon, 03/19/2018 - 13:44 Permalink

But, but -- millions of miles driven.  Safer than any human driver.  Yeah right.  Millions of miles AT 15 FUCKING MPH because the computer *brain* had no understanding of the situation.

Morons like Mish think this technology is nearly ready.  I believe if honest testing is done these cars are much more dangerous than a teenager texting away.

Joe Pesci in Casino... YOU'VE BEEN WARNED.

In reply to by IH8OBAMA

Hal n back IH8OBAMA Mon, 03/19/2018 - 13:47 Permalink

its only a 35 mph zone in that area which might be just south of the Zoo so it would be interesting to learn if the car was doing the speed limit or not or overridden by the rider.

Its also going to  be interesting to learn if the bicyclist veered out of the bicycle lane at the wrong time--early monday morning kind of means 2 am ish so why is a person on a bicycle at 2 AM-and was that person drinking, or exhausted-its far enough north of the college campus. AZ has some tough DUI laws. The article says the person killed was a woman, and hopefullly the question raised is why is a woman riding a bike if indeed its 2AM? Going home from work in Tempe?

Hopefully the truth on this is not buried. Its important for everyone. Lots of questions.

 

update-the more recent news is the woman was crossing the street from west to east outside the crosswalk and teh car was traveling north.  So if it was not at the intersection, and she was not in the crosswalk, and it was 2 AM ish, was she on the  bike riding at more than walking speed and if she was at walking speed I would think the car software would recognize that and stop suddenly. With each persons direction, I can understand why at 2 in the AM a driver, automated or not, going north might not see a person or bicyclist crossing from left to right.When I am out at midnight in a not too dense area like this, I really do not expect to see anybody walking or riding a bike.

of course if the car was traveling at the speed limit and the bicyclist appears out of nowhere, good software or not its hard to stop a car suddenly when someone comes out of (seemingly) nowhere.

 

In reply to by IH8OBAMA

glenlloyd Hal n back Mon, 03/19/2018 - 13:57 Permalink

Asking why the person was on a bicycle is the wrong question, how is that even germane to the issue of autonomous cars? The right question is why the autonomous car couldn't deal with the situation it was presented without killing someone, that's the question.

Your question suggests you believe that people should be controlled as to when they can go out of the house? Last time I looked we're still a somewhat free country and can go outside at any time we like. Because it was late the cyclist should not have been out there? That's preposterous.

These autonomous vehicles are so good it shouldn't matter if she accidentally veered out of the lane, vehicle should have been able to handle it, otherwise we have a situation where they can't be trusted.

So it'll come down to, "we can't be out of the house after dark because the autonomous cars can't see us?" That's going to be the excuse now? Hilarious!

In reply to by Hal n back

Hal n back glenlloyd Mon, 03/19/2018 - 14:16 Permalink

nope--the issue is we have to wait for the facts and details. That area, and I know it, is a wide stretch of roadway and at 2 AM if someone is crossing in the middle of the block and darts out in front of any car its not a good situation.

Yes, the software can and perhaps should catch it but what if the car is traveling at 35 mph and takes 60 feet to stop under any circumstance? Whose fault is it. Why was she not in crosswalk or was she just 1 or 2 feet outside the crosswalk.

Yeah, this is important from many perspectives. I want to know if I or my kids are walking and crossing a street legally and properly, a car will not run amock and hit them. It happens too much as is. Automated cars will not be perfect but should be a measurable  improvement.

In reply to by glenlloyd

CashMcCall AutoLode Mon, 03/19/2018 - 14:44 Permalink

Absolutely false. The car black box and the pedestrians cell phone can determine quite accurately the fault. This woman may have been drunk or under the influence of a substance. She was in violation of the law. In states with comparative negligence, she might win a small settlement. In states with contributory, she would lose period. 

Under Arizona's comparative negligence laws, an injured party is allowed to recover even if he or she is 99% at fault. ... Arizona does, however, block any recovery by the plaintiff if he or she intentionally caused or contributed to the injury or death.

A violation of Jay Walking is an intentional action unless the woman was drunk or under the influence, then it could not be "Intentional". Jaywalking is an intentional act. I say she loses and well she should. 

In reply to by AutoLode

snblitz IH8OBAMA Mon, 03/19/2018 - 14:14 Permalink

In California you are not allowed to run over pedestrians no matter where they appear on the road.

In San Francisco a bicycle gang (pedal bikes) called critical mass uses this to their advantage to terrorize the driving population.  Go to youtube and watch critical mass bikers intentionally trying to get run over and then blame the driver.  (well that is if youtube has not censored the videos).

In reply to by IH8OBAMA

booboo phatfawzi Mon, 03/19/2018 - 13:59 Permalink

Ok here is one for you, when "it" kills a person and "it" is at fault who gets the manslaughter charge? and if it becomes the norm that manslaughter turns into a dollar amount fine why was manslaughter ever a charge that could be levied in the past? and if no "person" can be found at fault why should there be a fine?

Corpocracy wins again.

In reply to by phatfawzi