Uber Settles With Family of Woman Killed By Self-Driving Car, Avoids Lawsuit (arstechnica.com) 124
It appears that Uber won't go to court to settle a lawsuit after one of its self-driving cars killed a woman in Tempe, Arizona earlier this month. An anonymous Slashdot reader shares a report from Ars Technica: Uber has reached a settlement with the family of the woman killed by an Uber self-driving car. Uber reached the settlement with the daughter and husband of Elaine Herzberg, who died at age 49 after being hit by the Uber vehicle in Tempe, Arizona. The settlement presumably includes a cash payment, but no details were provided by either Uber or the family's attorney. "The matter has been resolved," said Christina Perez Hesano, an attorney for Herzberg's family, according to reports by Reuters and NPR.
needs to go to criminal court (Score:3, Insightful)
needs to go to criminal court
Re: (Score:1)
I agree. The crime should be a post-humorous guilty for the idiot that jaywalked and won the Darwin award.
Re: (Score:2)
actually uber engineers should be and the uber driver.
uber knows their driver wasn't paying attention - their whole permit dependent on the driver paying attention.
then they disabled factory safety systems, which may or may not be illegal in that state. even if you're sticking on extra stuff.
then the car had no safety for parts of the autonomous driving system being apparently non functional. .. uber would get a free pass if the driver could be shown to have been paying attention but instead it has been sho
Re: needs to go to criminal court (Score:1)
Just jaywalking doesn't get a driver off the hook if they weren't taking reasonable precautions to avoid running over unforeseen obstacles.
In this case she had already crossed multiple lanes and was almost past the lane the uber cat was in.
The vehicle was being operated in a reckless and irresponsible way that outstripped the ability of the human driver to keep it under control.
Of nobody goes to prison over this, then why would any of these companies worry about safety.
Re: (Score:2)
Upon watching the video closely and looking at the exact spot the accident happened with Google Street view, there is no way this accident should have happened. While the video doesn't show the woman in the distance, I believe she should have been clearly visible since there are two street lights close to where she was crossing. The dynamic range of the dashcam video is poor so the darker areas which would clearly be visible to a human driver just show up as black. If the driver had bothered to look up rath
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
needs to go to criminal court
What's the point? The jaywalker is dead already, filing criminal changes against her won't accomplish anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Most jurisdictions have laws indicating that cross walking between controlled intersections is prohibited.
Most jurisdictions also have laws on the books that prohibit stopping your car within an intersection and impeding traffic. If you're trying to enter the roadway at any place other than an intersection you have to wait until you can safely make your maneuver or another car yields the right of way to you because your "pushing" out is a moving violation.
Re: (Score:1)
She deserved a good horn honking and a 1-finger salute, not a body bag. Jaywalking shouldn't be a capital offense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:needs to go to criminal court (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems like everyone except you knows that these cars, like literally every other computer, are only capable of doing what they were programmed to do (and, even then, only if every part of the system is working). It also seems like everyone except you also understands that progress is going to continue, there are multiple competing technologies or companies, and that progress is going to reduce the overall rate of deaths from car accidents at some point in the future. Just because we aren't at that point yet is no reason to issue some sort of blanket ban.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
You're an idiot Rick, and you have no problem illustrating that fact. Is that what you think it was programmed to do, Rick? Are the people working on this software sitting there saying "I don't want this to be perfect, let's just work until it works right most of the time and then go home." Is that really what you think these people are doing? If you saw the Uber video, it should be obvious to any thinking human that large parts of that system failed. I know there were a lot of medium-sized words in th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming that self-driving cars are a form of progress. A lot of people oppose them, for privacy, security and financial reasons. For instance, how many years of normal deaths are going to be made up in the first hacking of 1 million cars on the road? Of 100 million? How are you going to like renting rides from a company that sells your data as opposed to owning a car.
Re: (Score:1)
This is a great point. And I would go even further. I don't even see progress as having anything to do with technology. To me progress is more related to advances toward an equitable and just society, which is a human endeavour . The technologies that support these goals I would consider progressive technologies, but most of what is labelled "progress" today is just the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming that self-driving cars are a form of progress.
They are.
A lot of people oppose them, for privacy, security and financial reasons.
That's fantastic. In other news, when they're doing the actual job of driving people or things from place to place, independent of any privacy or security issues that the companies might add to the existing vehicle, what we're going to see is a reduction in driving injuries and fatalities. And, yes, I call that progress.
For instance, how many years of normal deaths are going to be made up in the first hacking of 1 million cars on the road?
I hope you don't expect an answer to that ridiculous question.
How are you going to like renting rides from a company that sells your data as opposed to owning a car.
Why would I choose to do business with a company selling my data? Is selling my data some sort of requirement for au
Re: (Score:2)
Have you seen the dashcam footage?
Please explain the liability here. No human on earth could have prevented this woman from being killed in this situation.
She had a death wish and/or was incredibly stupid.
Re: needs to go to criminal court (Score:4, Informative)
Uber was speeding 3 mph. Safety driver was looking at lap. Second safety driver was dispensed with. Uber software is known for dangerous bugs (read article on them in MIT review 2 years ago). Though possible for a human, the Uber made no attempt to brake. Kinetic energy due to the excess speed was 17% of impact energy. Braking would have reduced it further. A second safety driven could have called attention. Sticking to speed limit and braking would both have reduced impact energy substantially and may have given the woman valuable reaction time.
Re: (Score:2)
Reaction time? That woman could've been given the rest of the night to react and it would've made no difference. She was totally oblivious to that oncoming car. Despite what appears to be flaws or faults in the "autonomous" driving mechanics or software, she was as much to blame for that as anyone. Given that perhaps the video is darker than it would have appeared in real life, I still don't see how a human driver (e.g., me, and I'm neither careless nor slow) could've avoided her.
But yeah, payoff is pro
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, they were 2 mph under the limit. Or maybe 7mph; I've heard conflicting stories about whether the limit was 35, 40, or 45.
The accident would have been prevented by a human driver taking their foot off the gas when they saw the woman start crossing the road. Not reduced, prevented. There was plenty of time to avoid it entirely...if only someone had been watching.
Re: (Score:1)
If it had been an unmodified version of the car, it's basic crash avoidance tech would have saved her life. Uber's tech is apparently worse than what currently exists on production vehicles.
Re: (Score:3)
needs to go to criminal court
Criminal and civil liability are different. The family settling doesn't mean Uber won't face charges.
On the other hand, even if Uber escaped criminal consequences they could still lose a civil trial [wikipedia.org].
Re: needs to go to criminal court (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Judge: How does the defendant plea?
Car: *beep*
Judge: I need a guilty or not guilty.
Car: [*flips windshield wipers, splashing a bit onto prosecutor*}
Prosecutor: Your honor!
Judge: Enough of that. I need a plea *now*!
Car: [shudders and squirts a quart of oil, fouling the prosecutor's shoes]
Re:needs to go to criminal court (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes.
The state prosecutor needs to look at this and decide if there is a case of criminal negligence, wilful blindness, or whatever Arizona law has.
It would also be a good idea for Arizona's voters to look at their Governor's cosy relations with Uber, and how he encouraged slack requirements for driverless vehicles at a time when California was enacting stricter requirements for them.
Source:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/03/28/uber_selfdriving_death_may_have_been_due_to_lidar_blind_spot/
Hey, Arizona! Do you want your kids to be killed by Uber's experiments? Or do you want Uber to make cars safer before unleashing them on public roads?
A start, might be to go back to multiple LIDAR sensors around the car, instead of the cheaper single sensor on the roof.
Re: (Score:3)
I see you're not a fan of personal responsibility, since you're defending people who made a car that can't detect a pedestrian in plain view, and a safety driver that was inattentive. Personal responsibility as a driver means I don't hit people, even if I can construct a legal case so I'm not actually charged.
and the ford one will just payout vs fixing issues (Score:2)
and the ford one will just payout vs fixing issues as it costs less.
Re: (Score:2)
Already?! (Score:2)
It's barely been two weeks. I don't think either party is doing themselves any favours by settling so quickly. The family might barely have had time to grieve, which could (or maybe it couldn't, IANAL) leave Uber open to having the original settlement discarded if they change their minds. It also just makes Uber look pretty shady that they just mumble some apologies and throw a ton of cash at the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's barely been two weeks.
They just need to agree on a number. It shouldn't take more than a few hours to look at some similar incidents for precedent. Dragging it out just means more money goes to the lawyers.
The family might barely have had time to grieve
Oh give me a break. She was homeless. Neither her daughter nor husband was even willing to let her sleep on their sofa. Do you really think they are so heartbroken that they need weeks to grieve?
It also just makes Uber look pretty shady that they just mumble some apologies and throw a ton of cash at the problem.
Yes it is amazing that Uber was willing to sully their otherwise pristine reputation. It would have been soooo much more ethica
Re: (Score:3)
It shouldn't take more than a few hours to look at some similar incidents for precedent.
Yet it's the first time a woman is killed by a self-driving car, so I don't see how. Convincing the parties that this is the same as any distracted driver hitting any jaywalker would be dishonest.
Re: (Score:2)
In situations like this, you should always ask yourself, "Who would Jesus kill?"
Africa (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
The point is: lawyer up and don't settle.
That works when the other party is actually at fault. It doesn't work when there's documented evidence that you're suing on behalf of someone who jumped out in front of traffic, and absolutely nobody could have avoided hitting her.
It makes economic sense for Uber, because just responding to discovery requests is likely more expensive than paying out something relatively nominal, even if they weren't at all at fault. But if you don't settle when you really have no case, you eventually get absolutely nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
I see the trolls are out again trying to save the self drive industry. So explain to us again how LIDAR cannot see in the dark?
And I'll say again, Uber got super lucky it was a homeless person. The shlitterbahn guys got arrested when their water slide killed someone, who just happened to be the kid of a senator. This is what should happen here as well. Uber downgraded the LIDAR for cost saving. Wonder if it saved em more than the payout to family?
Re: (Score:2)
Where Uber got *super* lucky is that the person that they hit was actually breaking the law by jaywalking.
Allegedly the car didn't even stop after the collision -- the human sitting in the driver's seat had to stop the car.
Given that the self-driving stuff probably relies on LIDAR to detect things like cyclists, it sounds like the system may not have even detected a cyclist riding down the road in the proper way with proper lighting as required by law and would have run them down. Had that been the case, t
Re: (Score:2)
She was in the middle lane when hit. Didn't 'jump out'. Ubers cameras have _shitty_ night vision. WTF happened to LIDAR?
Re: (Score:2)
Coming from the left. The video shows a wide shoulder to her right, if not a true lane.
Re:That was a little too quick. (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're settling on the immediate medical bills. The settlement wouldn't necessarily cover for physical therapy or other future medical bills. There's also the loss of wages due to the accident. Programs in the US which provide payments to you for being unable to work do not typically reach the level that is equivalent to your wages. If you normally earn $400/day, you might get paid at a rate of $200/day. If it takes you twelve weeks to recover then that's $12000 in wages that you lost due to the accident.
Re: (Score:3)
The point is: lawyer up and dont settle.
Don't generalise. This was a road vehicle accident, and in the overwhelming vast majority of cases the family of victims get diddley squat. Doubly so that there was an employee Uber was able to throw under the bus for this. And the person was crossing the road where she wasn't supposed to.
Point is don't always assume you are in an awesome position just because ${bad_thing} happened to you. Your case varies greatly in strength for yourself as well as strength of opponents.
Personally I think the family was ri
Re: (Score:2)
This is a case where I expected they wouldn't even get a letter of condolence, not only because of the circumstances but also because of who was involved (and who wasn't, namely the family).
If a human driver had had this collision with no dashcam showing them on the phone -- there would be no settlement.
In fact, the insurance company might sue the estate of the deceased for damages to the car if they thought there was some money to get.
But ... this case is different. The self-driving car that should have been able to trivially avoid this collision, the inattentive "driver" (and evidence to that effect), the self-driving computer that probably kept logs of every little part of its decision mak
Re: (Score:2)
Don't generalise. This was a road vehicle accident, and in the overwhelming vast majority of cases the family of victims get diddley squat. Doubly so that there was an employee Uber was able to throw under the bus for this. And the person was crossing the road where she wasn't supposed to.
Well if I was a Uber lawyer I'd point out that despite all the things they could, might or should have done, any liability would depend on the legally required minimum of what they must do. So the family might drag Uber through the gutter, but in the end is anyone going to claim it's Uber's fault? I think they might have underestimated the Streisand effect, as a result of this NDA they probably can't say nothing. But I'm guessing they could make as much or more talking to the media, even if the actual case
Re: (Score:2)
A majority of pedestrian fatalities involve a vehicle wouldn't settle primarily because the majority of pedestrian fatalities occur because the pedestrian makes a violation of the law which creates the potential for the accident occur. If it came down to a lawsuit the question that would be hashed out is who is more at fault for the accident and the reality is that the pedestrian is almost universally more at fault because they crossed the road in violation of the law creating a binary situation of no accid
Re: (Score:2)
... Doubly so that there was an employee Uber was able to throw under the bus for this. ...
Is the bus self-driving, too?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The point is: lawyer up and dont settle. if someone is at fault for what happened the worst thing you can do is settle because nothing will get fixed. The company gets to claim no-fault, and can easily pay to have their story killed in the local news. My accident didnt even make the newspaper, but the company had to admit fault and disclose the event to shareholders. I was also successful in getting the rides full safety history disclosed, with more than 40 violations, which resulted in it being shut down. this triggered a full OSHA inspection, which shut down two more rides and ended up in documented fines and violations for the company.
Depends on your objective.
If you want to expose and fix the underlying issue then by all means drag out the process.
If you just want the maximum settlement then your question becomes what has most value to the company. And the most valuable thing to the company is a quick and quiet settlement that kills the story. They should, in theory, be willing to pay a big premium to make the problem go away and avoiding another ugly news cycle.
This of course assumes you have a competent legal team who didn't let you g
I can see why the husband might... (Score:3, Insightful)
...reach a settlement, but why would the daughter participate?
The damage to the car didn't look all that extensive - although perhaps some expensive sensors were damaged. I believe Arizona is a community property state so the husband may be obligated to pay for damages caused by the his wife's illegal jaywalking, but if the husband couldn't afford to pay for repairs, why would the daughter help out -- she has no legal obligation to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you think the terms of a settlement of this nature would preclude any further civil action on behalf of either party related to this incident? Are you seriously suggesting that Uber would cut them a check then go after them for the damage to the vehicle?
Get real.
Re: (Score:3)
No. I was in a (apparently too) dry attempt at humor suggesting that perhaps Uber was suing for repairs to the car and the family paid them rather than go to court. Nothing that's been I've seen reported tells us who paid who so everyone's making assumptions.
Of course, if I had to bet, I'd bet Uber/their insurance company paid off the family rather than go to court to defend themselves. It was probably cheaper than fighting the case in court even if they thought they would win (which, depending on Arizona's
Re: (Score:2)
What he is suggesting is that if there was a human behind the wheel, there would be no lawsuit here, as anyone who has seen the dashcam footage would know. This woman would have died with a human driving as well since she was extremely stupidly jaywalking across a four lane freeway under pitch black conditions.
No human could have reacted fast enough to not kill her, and no human would be found at fault, so there would be no settlement.
The only reason it is in the news, and being settled, is because it was a
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, AC, for the link.
When I was watching the original Uber video, it was immediately [slashdot.org] clear to me that how a human might perceive the situation in those lighting conditions might be quite different than what the video would have recorded. It also seemed strange that even the safety driver, when she was actually looking at the road (which, I assume she must have at some time during the trip, perhaps in a less than well lit area), would have been uncomfortable "overdriving" their headlights as much as it a
For a corporation, it's a no-brainer (Score:2)
It doesn't matter who's at fault here. Uber can afford to pay the family whatever they want. Going to court is not worth the bad publicity.
Apple is not in the self driving car business (Score:2)
NVIDIA (Score:1)
Not Necessarily Because of Criminal Actions (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
From what I've read, Uber is losing money fairly fast and has a negative revenue stream from people driving for it, paying the driver more than they charge the passenger. In that case, they're betting the company on self-driving technology.