Uber Driver Charged in Crash into Pedestrian on bike in 2018

Topics and News related to Vehicle Safety Issues such as New Technologies and Recalls
MSI
Site Admin
Posts: 2302
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:37 pm

Uber Driver Charged in Crash into Pedestrian on bike in 2018

Post by MSI »

Nov 23 2020: i have recently combined two items which probably are the reason for the police charging the driver in the crash:
  • The camera in the uber vehicle was low grade and so the video in no way represents the lighting condition at the time of the crash
  • The area of the crash was extremely well lit and so the person walking the bike should have been observed by any attentive driver.

So guess mea culpa for running fast and loose with the limited information i had.
The following are posts/information previously posted:

From BBC Uber's self-driving operator charged over fatal crash
Many Questions:
What was she charged with?
What were their considerations of perception/reaction?
Obviously the driver was negligent in not paying attention however had she been paying 100% attention would the circumstances be any different? Nighttime and person walking a bike across the lanes?
Seeing the dashcam video the visibility does not seem to allow for ANY P/R?
this was from NTSB REPORT about detection however she was traveling 45 MPH...that's 66 ft/sec...20 m/sec so essentially she might have gotten on the brakes at the instant of impact?
uber crash ntsb map.jpg
uber crash ntsb map.jpg (40.31 KiB) Viewed 7207 times
did a quick read...
NTSB did a sight distance study at 5 MPH??? and
here's info on THAT and their Conclusions:
P R v conclusions.jpg
P R v conclusions.jpg (264.45 KiB) Viewed 7187 times
Looks like time for Jeff Muttart to do an analysis and chime in!
Here is the video from the vehicle with a timer added...first real time, then slow motion
MSI
Site Admin
Posts: 2302
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:37 pm

Re: Uber Driver Charged in Crash into Pedestrian on bike in 2018

Post by MSI »

From another article i see the Uber driver was charged with negligent homicide
  • Vehicular homicide is a crime that involves the death of a person other than the driver as a result of either criminally negligent or murderous operation of a motor vehicle. In cases of criminal negligence, the defendant is commonly charged with unintentional vehicular manslaughter.
How to prove that HAD she not been watching a movie in the car THEN the person walking a bike in the dark across a road would have been seen and she would have been able to stop/slow her vehicle and so the bicycle walker would have survived?
Updated video with countdown clock in upper left corner

How will they prove that had she been 100% attentive she might have seen the person walking the bike and perceived, reacted and been able to brake or swerve to avoid the collision?
Perception time, reaction time...1.5 to 2.5 or more seconds...the video shows less than that time available.
The person walking the bike was NOT walking in an area illuminated from overhead lights (or so it seems so in the video above)
In the dark, dark no reflective clothing
from the video above the person with the bike was NOT IN VIEW until approx 1 second before the collision.
The driver would have NOT had ANY time to do anything!

Will like to see the report and HOW they plan to PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that she was criminally negligent?
She should NOT have been watching a video That is true.
However
Even if she wasn't there was NOT ENOUGH TIME to Perceive and respond and brake/swerve from 45 MPH to avoid the collision!
Review the video above.
Guess political point being made is 'DO NOT WATCH VIDEOS WHILE DRIVING!'
i agree that one should give FULL ATTENTION to the driving task however would this have been avoided?

And DO NOT WATCH VIDEO also good advice since if you recall the Tesla driver who was watching a video and ran up underneath a trailer!
Now that was in broad daylight and the driver would have had more than adequate time to perceive and react to avoid that collision.
Not so in this collision or so it seems. Will be interesting to see how they came to charge her with negligent homicide and how they plan to prove that.
MSI
Site Admin
Posts: 2302
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:37 pm

Re: Uber Driver Charged in Crash into Pedestrian on bike in 2018

Post by MSI »

Q: Two comments received:
  • I’d certainly be interested in mapping the illumination levels at that intersection. I am not so sure that PRT would have been significantly different, but video is notoriously insufficient in capturing illumination properly too.
  • That video is from an after market dashcam that is of poor quality. It does not represent what was actually visible to the driver.
A: i understand and hope and expect that they have proof to back up the charges 'beyond a reasonable doubt' since
  1. light of screen even without a movie playing, does it constrict driver's pupils?
    • It certainly does with a movie playing (from video). That would reduce driver night time visibility
  2. I've heard Uber disabled a Volvo safety feature that some say would have stopped the vehicle,
    • if so, why is Uber not a part of this?
  3. Ambient light: it appears from that video the pedestrian with bike emerged from area not lit by overhead lights
    • That goes to actual scene mapping of overhead lights as mentioned in comments.
      MAIN QUESTION WILL BE: Was ambient overhead lights enough for an average driver to be able to discern an unexpected dark clothed individual walking a bicycle across lanes in an unmarked area?
      Very complicated Perception/Reaction will increase the time before braking significantly greater than normal times.
      Obviously the tests by police that NTSB observed were run at 5 MPH knowing about and looking for a pedestrian is not the actual scenario
  4. The presence of someone crossing the lanes of travel in that area,is it a common expected occurrence?
    • Have other pedestrians been struck near that location? There have been some indications in comments that the area is a homeless/vagrant hangout. If so, why weren't those folks charged?
Nighttime visibility with dark clothing and limitations of a constricted pupil to see in the night outside the range of headlights is some of my concern with the charges.
Obviously she SHOULD NOT have been watching a movie/distracted however not sure if the circumstances would have been different and she might/could/should have seen/perceived/reacted and avoided the collision 'beyond a reasonable doubt'
PaulMcP82
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:47 pm

Re: Uber Driver Charged in Crash into Pedestrian on bike in 2018

Post by PaulMcP82 »

Wait, she was actually watching a movie when driving??? Then it's no wonder she was declared guilty, that's obviously an error from the driver's side.
Are reflective vests/patches on the cyclist and/or bicycle mandatory when cycling at night there? That could make it easier for drivers to notice cyclists at night, even if they're distracted (outside of gross disregards of safety like watching movies when driving), the sudden appearance of something bright in one's field of vision should attract their attention.
MSI
Site Admin
Posts: 2302
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:37 pm

Re: Uber Driver Charged in Crash into Pedestrian on bike in 2018

Post by MSI »

Q: Wait, she was actually watching a movie when driving???
  • A: Yes it appears. It was an autonomous vehicle. She was NOT supposed to be watching a movie. She was supposed to be monitoring the vehicle to be sure it functioned properly. (So perhaps better stated 'an experimental autonomous vehicle')
    I guess some questions which need to be answered are:
    • why didn't the autonomous vehicle see the person walking the bike across the lanes of travel? It had radar or other 'see in the dark' abilities.
    • Would a driver in the same scenario (driving at night in low light situation) been able to see and react to a pedestrian walking a bike across the highway in an area NOT MARKED for pedestrian traffic?
    The police investigators must believe that had she been paying attention she would have seen and reacted to the person crossing in front of her.
Q: Then it's no wonder she was declared guilty, that's obviously an error from the driver's side.
  • A: She has been charged and no verdict or trial or settlement has occurred yet.
Q: Are reflective vests/patches on the cyclist and/or bicycle mandatory when cycling at night there? That could make it easier for drivers to notice cyclists at night, even if they're distracted (outside of gross disregards of safety like watching movies when driving), the sudden appearance of something bright in one's field of vision should attract their attention.
  • A: No there are no laws requiring pedestrians or bicyclists wear reflective clothing. Obviously reflective clothing might have made the person more visible. The person was jaywalking meaning crossing in an area of the street not delineated for pedestrian traffic (or pedestrian walking a bicycle traffic).
    The area had some overhead lights. I expect the overhead light's locations and brightness/ability to light objects on the road/shoulder with respect to the pedestrian's location will be a central focus of the trial.
    Obviously the police think a typical driver should have been able to see and react/respond to the person walking the bicycle across the traffic lanes at night.

    Should be an interesting test case for how responsible are and possible will people driving vehicles with autonomous or semi-autonomous controls that fail to react to an obstruction in the roadway.
MSI
Site Admin
Posts: 2302
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:37 pm

Re: Uber Driver Charged in Crash into Pedestrian on bike in 2018

Post by MSI »

i have recently combined two items which probably are the reason for the police charging the driver in the crash:
  • The camera in the uber vehicle was low grade and so the video in no way represents the lighting condition at the time of the crash
  • The area of the crash was extremely well lit and so the person walking the bike should have been observed by any attentive driver.

So guess mea culpa for running fast and loose with the limited information i had.
Post Reply