The Tempe Autonomous Uber Crash Footage Is Here

"Urambo Tauro" (urambotauro)
03/21/2018 at 20:30 • Filed to: Uber, autonomous cars, car crashes

And it confirms all of our worst suspicions about the incident.

Sunday night’s crash in !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! involving an Uber in “autonomous mode” has caused a whirlwind of speculation. How in the world was this crash not avoided? Did the pedestrian suddenly jump out from between some parked cars? Was there some other obstruction to visibility or other factor that made this crash truly unavoidable?

Now we can (sort of) see for ourselves.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Tonight, a crappy-resolution video of the crash was finally made available to the public. At a mere 22 seconds, only the most relevant footage is shown. And it tells us exactly who dropped the ball here.

Everybody. Everybody dropped the fucking ball.

There’s no mistake about it; pedestrian Elaine Herzberg was in clear violation of right-of-way, jaywalking across multiple lanes without using a nearby crosswalk. She doesn’t appear to change her pace or even bother to look in the direction of the oncoming vehicle until the very last split-second. Nor does she bear any lamps or reflective clothing to make herself more visible. It’s almost like she wanted to get hit.

And the Uber doesn’t hesitate to fulfill such a death wish. Right up until the footage cuts away to spare us the graphic part, the car (in autonomous mode, mind you) maintains speed and trajectory, never attempting to slow or swerve. The car doesn’t react to her or her bicycle, which is fully perpendicular to the car, a sizeable profile for any cameras or sensors to pick up. Yet every system in the car ignores her presence.

And then there’s the final fail-safe: Rafaela Vasquez, a “safety operator”, there to make sure that the vehicle performs as it ought. She has pedals at her feet, a steering wheel right in front of her, and bright headlights to show the way. She even has the luxury of street lamps lining the road in question. And she can see far more than what any of us can make out in the video... if she would just LOOK.

WE are first able to see Elaine’s shoes at the video clip’s 2-second mark. Vasquez would have had a much better view, though.

The poor video resolution doesn’t allow us to see Herzberg until 2 seconds into the clip. By that point, the impending crash is borderline avoidable. Hard braking might not even be enough, but a quick swerve might have saved her.

#ThingsVasquezWouldRatherLookAt

But Vasquez wasn’t blinded by the limitations of 480p. She was blinded by her own choice to trust the car and give her attention to what seems to be a phone instead. It’s estimated that had she been watching through the windshield, Vasquez should have been able to see Herzberg and her bicycle at LEAST 2-4 seconds before we are able to spot her in the low-res video. That’s more than enough time to keep this from happening.

Alas, by the time she looks up to see Elaine through the windshield, it’s already too late. She’s already squandered every opportunity she had to prevent this.

She just let it happen. As did the car. As did Elaine.

The pedestrian could easily have waited, stopped, and/or jumped out of the way. The car should have been able to see her much sooner than the video suggests, and hit the brakes and/or swerved in time. And the safety operator could have been looking at the road . Is that too much to ask?

DISCUSSION (44)

Shoop > Urambo Tauro
03/21/2018 at 20:43

I hope that thing ends up in jail.

bob and john > Urambo Tauro
03/21/2018 at 20:44

wow. while infrared is a thing that should have been used, she didnt even LOOK. and lets Jay-walk while wearing all black.

I get wanting to throw the blame on the Uber here, I really do.

but. I cant. not me anyways. this one is on the jaywalker.

His Stigness > Urambo Tauro
03/21/2018 at 20:48

I think the “safety” driver should be cited for using his phone while operating a vehicle. That’s some bullshit. If they’re just going to put sacks of meat there, why not just put literal sacks of meat there?

BrianGriffin thinks “reliable” is just a state of mind > Urambo Tauro
03/21/2018 at 20:51

You know what? There is only one person responsible for this crash: the dummy who was in the middle of the road that was not supposed to be there. The road is for CARS. Period.

This is not a failure for the self driving car. This is just a learning curve that the rules of the road need to be respected.

benjrblant > His Stigness
03/21/2018 at 20:54

Sacks of meat would smell pretty bad after a day in the sun.

Spaceball-Two > Urambo Tauro
03/21/2018 at 20:58

I’m just glad Kyle Gas has gotten stable work after Tenacious D disbanded

benjrblant > BrianGriffin thinks “reliable” is just a state of mind
03/21/2018 at 21:03

The road is for CARS. Period.

Or trucks? Or motorcycles? Or cyclists? Or permit-approved oversize loads? Or in some states and cities even ATVs and Golf carts as deemed by the local government? And in many instances without sidewalks pedestrians can even be advised to walk along the roadway against the flow of traffic.

JawzX2, Boost Addict. 1.6t, 2.7tt, 4.2t > Urambo Tauro
03/21/2018 at 21:06

yeah, this was a total fail on all parts... every single one of these failures contributed to this accident happening. The jaywalker was stupid/invisible, the autonomous car missed her, and the “safety” driver wasn’t paying attention.

Result: BOOM.

Urambo Tauro > bob and john
03/21/2018 at 21:13

It is very much so on the jaywalker. But I’m not ready to declare Uber and Vasquez innocent. There’s some serious negligence at play here.

wafflesnfalafel > Urambo Tauro
03/21/2018 at 21:16

honestly, that makes me feel better - the human “driver” was looking up and saw the ped as soon as she was seeable. Neither car nor human had a chance to avoid. The lady with the bicycle put herself in an unwinable situation. I’m curious if the Volvo was quick enough to get on the brakes at all, what kind of reaction time does it have...

someassemblyrequired > Urambo Tauro
03/21/2018 at 21:20

Yep, this is inexcusable from an automation perspective - an object that large should have been detected and the brakes applied even if it was a road where no pedestrians or bicycles were present. Autonomous cars need to expect the unexpected - just like good drivers do. And they need to protect vulnerable road users, even when they’re being idiots. There’s no moral high ground in serving up a death sentence for jaywalking.

And there’s another issue here - high levels of automation often lead to operator inattention. That’s obviously in play here as well.

ttyymmnn > Urambo Tauro
03/21/2018 at 21:24

I got hit by a car once when I was a kid. We were playing football in the street, and I ran out into the road from between two parked cars. I was watching the ball, not the road. Thankfully, the car wasn’t going very fast and I just landed hard and got my bell rung. The cop who arrived on the scene said to my dad, “You realize you son is entirely at fault here.” And I was.

bob and john > Urambo Tauro
03/21/2018 at 21:27

I’m more inclined to put it more on Vasquez. Uber and the tech. eh. I agree not entirely quite free. But i’m less concerned about them

HammerheadFistpunch > JawzX2, Boost Addict. 1.6t, 2.7tt, 4.2t
03/21/2018 at 21:28

Called a swiss cheese model failure. You build layers so you feel justified ignoring your role in the layers because there are redundancies. But when the failures align...

someassemblyrequired > bob and john
03/21/2018 at 21:34

I wonder though how the automation deals with motorcycles though if it couldn’t handle a bicycle, especially given that visible light isn’t really an issue. I guess you’d have more of a heat signature and higher speeds and hopefully a more attentive rider, but it doesn’t look like Uber’s programming is that good.

bob and john > someassemblyrequired
03/21/2018 at 21:38

motorcycles also dont travel perpendicular to the road in the middle of the night totally un lit.

His Stigness > benjrblant
03/21/2018 at 21:40

How about a dummy then?

Oh, wait, that was there. Maybe we just leave the seat empty so people know there isn’t a human paying attention.

Urambo Tauro > ttyymmnn
03/21/2018 at 21:41

Harsh but true.

Highlander-Datsuns are Forever > Urambo Tauro
03/21/2018 at 21:42

I’m sorry but you would need ninja reflexes to avoid that crash. How else do 1,000’s of deer get hit every year? My reflex is Always to brake and I bet I still would have hit her at 25 mph.

someassemblyrequired > bob and john
03/21/2018 at 21:42

Apparently it’s a 35 MPH section though, there’s lots of residential streets where a bike could cross perpendicular or enter from a driveway at those speeds. And theoretically, being unlit shouldn’t matter to an automated car equipped with lidar and infrared.

someassemblyrequired > bob and john
03/21/2018 at 21:42

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > someassemblyrequired
03/21/2018 at 21:48

Lane splitting is a scourge.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > benjrblant
03/21/2018 at 21:49

We don’t know how that guy smelled. Could’ve been pretty bad.

TheTurbochargedSquirrel > someassemblyrequired
03/21/2018 at 21:50

With a final product you would be correct. However this is experimental tech still years away from being ready for public use. It is going to have glitches and it is going to mess things up. The real failure here for Uber was that of the human operator. He’s there as the safeguard against the issues that come with experimental tech and needs to be ready for the tech to screw up at any moment. He needed to notice that the car didn’t notice the pedestrian with the bike, take over from the car, and then report back to Uber that their system doesn’t always notice people with bikes at night.

TheTurbochargedSquirrel > someassemblyrequired
03/21/2018 at 21:50

bob and john > someassemblyrequired
03/21/2018 at 21:53

read that again: totally unlit. a bike would have head and tail lights

nermal > Urambo Tauro
03/21/2018 at 21:56

The next interesting piece will be the remainder of what the car’s “brains” thought during the process. When did the car “see” the person? What was it programmed to do?

Surely one of the first things programmed into the car is “don’t hit shit”, which in this case it failed at.

This also raises more questions. Would a human have reacted differently? Even if self driving cars are better in every way from a safety perspective, besides mowing down jaywalkers at night, is that acceptable? Because dead men tell no tales, is the car programmed to calculate the likelihood of a fatality vs serious injury, and make sure it kills the person it is mowing down?

someassemblyrequired > bob and john
03/21/2018 at 22:06

Yeah i get your point for the human driver, but the automated car doesn’t have that excuse.

someassemblyrequired > TheTurbochargedSquirrel
03/21/2018 at 22:15

Nothing you said is incorrect here, but I think given that the technology is in its infancy, it should err on the side of false positives rather than false negatives. There’s no way the lidar system and/or cameras did not detect movement. Hell my T&C goes nuts when a squirrel farts across the back of the car when I’m backing up. My ‘02 Jag had that too, and it was just as effective. That’s decades old technology - and yes while there are a lot of false positives there were also a couple of real positives where the system provided time to avoid a situation. What’s the issue with ringing the chime in the cabin to alert the safety driver if there’s a potential object detected? Or slowing down like a regular driver would if they saw something out of the corner of their eye?

Urambo Tauro > nermal
03/21/2018 at 22:17

I hope every one of these cars is keeping a detailed log of their decision-making and execution processes, time-stamped in accordance with the onboard cameras. I don’t think they’ve said yet whether the car failed to detect the pedestrian, or if the detection failed to trigger a reaction. I wonder if a collision sensor stopped the car, or if Vasquez had to do it himself...

coqui70 > Urambo Tauro
03/21/2018 at 22:31

What’s that shit around the “safety driver’s” head ... his hair? Weird ... in any case could he have charges filed for vehicular manslaughter since he was texting while “driving”?

Maxima Speed > His Stigness
03/21/2018 at 22:57

Here’s the thing though, There is an argument to be made here that a “driver” with nothing to actively do, cannot be reasonably expected to maintain enough awareness to safely react to any sudden events. My underwear is that the brain prioritizes function by active need, without an active need or something to hold interest, most people cannot maintain that kind of attention span.

I think the front page did and article about that one time with the premise being that manual drivers are safer due to the required attention required to drive.

DipodomysDeserti > Urambo Tauro
03/21/2018 at 23:33

I know this area. There are various homeless encapments nearby and a couple parks. I’m speculating, but there’s a good chance that a forty-something year-old woman on a bike with multiple bags on it walking around at 10pm in this area is homeless. So, the lack of lighting could be attributed to her not having the funds for it.

Dusty Ventures > wafflesnfalafel
03/21/2018 at 23:40

Not so much, as Urambo mentioned, the human eye could have picked up the pedestrian a good four seconds sooner than the camera footage did. Cameras suck for giving accurate portrayals of visibility at night. And things like street lights and headlights make it even worse, the camera darkens the image so that the lights don’t overload the image, thereby exacerbating the darkness of the less lit areas even further. I mean that video is showing a headlight illumination distance of what, 50 feet? Maybe 100? A car would be undrivable if that was the limit of the sight distance. Reality is the safety driver could see much further than the camera could, if he’d actually been looking at the road.

DipodomysDeserti > Highlander-Datsuns are Forever
03/21/2018 at 23:47

I don’t know what that video is sped up to, but the speed limit on Mill Avenue is 35 mph. You don’t need ninja reflexes to avoid a person in the middle of the road while travelling 35 mph. This is a 47 year-old woman walking a bike. She’s probably moving a lot slower than a deer. I’ve avoided much smaller objects while traveling at higher speeds with headlights from the 60s.

DipodomysDeserti > bob and john
03/21/2018 at 23:57

Arizona has tons of unlit crosswalks where pedestrians have the right of way. If this thing couldn’t detect her at 35mph, it’s going to end up running someone over who is in a crosswalk.

Shoop > Shoop
03/22/2018 at 00:06

https://www.google.com/amp/s/everipedia.org/wiki/rafaela-vasquez/?source=images

Idk if this link will work but Vasquez has already gone to jail for robbery. Nice.

His Stigness > Maxima Speed
03/22/2018 at 00:14

But the driver is supposed to be actively paying attention to the road in case the car fails to react. We’ve been led to believe through marketing that the systems are faster than us, therefore the car should have stopped before a human can react. But we both know marketing is bullshit. But if the car needs a safety driver then that implies the driver needs to pay attention, otherwise what’s the point of having the safety driver?

Wacko > coqui70
03/22/2018 at 00:25

Looks like it her hair

https://everipedia.org/wiki/rafaela-vasquez/

Link was postred by shoopdawoop

RiceRocketeer Extraordinaire > bob and john
03/22/2018 at 01:39

If that had been a normal car in that incident we wouldn’t even be hearing about it in the news. Asking your average driver to dodge an sudden obstacle in 2 seconds is a tall order.

The sad part is that this kind of thing autonomous cars are supposed to be better than humans at, given all the sensors and stuff.

nermal > Urambo Tauro
03/22/2018 at 09:01

I’d think that they are keeping detailed records of everything, from video inputs to actual decisions.

In the interest of creating maximum outrage and FUD, I’m assuming that after the car tasted blood for the first time it turned evil, with intent to go on a rampage mowing down as many pedestrians as possible. The HERO driver realized this, quickly hitting the battery disconnect and saving the town from massive carnage.

Spanfeller is a twat > Urambo Tauro
03/22/2018 at 18:46

I don’t think Vasquez should be sent to jail for this, but Uber should have it’s license to test autonomous vehicles revoked indefinitely across the US and their algorithms should be made public for analysis. fuck their patent if they have one.

On the other hand, I bet Elaine did see the car, just chose to ignore it and hoped it would stop for her, I’ve seen many cyclists do this and it wouldn’t surprise me if she was doing just that. Cyclists (I include myself here) act like Jackasses many times.

Also, did they do a tox screening of both people?

Even if Elaine was being a jackass, the responsibility is on the car. If a toddler walked into my path while driving I wouldn’t be able to tell the police it was the toddler’s fault; I’d be sent to jail for quite some time for hitting this toddler. Now think of drunk humans or animals that don’t know/respect the laws of the road and could walk in the path of a car that under control of a human could be stopped or veered out of the way. Even a competent algorithm would’ve been able to stop; it’s just the Uber computer not doing it’s job properly.

Spanfeller is a twat > bob and john
03/22/2018 at 18:47

“ motorcycles also dont travel perpendicular to the road in the middle of the night totally un lit.”

clearly you’ve never been to Mexico....

coqui70 > Wacko
03/22/2018 at 23:03

Oh ... shit my bad thought it was a guy.