Relatives of the deceased won’t sue Uber. To summarize and ask questions.

As you know, recently happened the first fatal accident with the participation of an unmanned vehicle and a pedestrian. Recall that the drone Uber night knocked down a woman crossing the road in the wrong place, which was next to the bike.

Looking ahead, Uber agreed out of court with the relatives of the deceased, that is the proceedings that the court will not. But since the accident there are many important details that you need to know. So, let’s list the facts:

  1. The Uber car was moving at night with a speed of about 60 km/h;
  2. The woman was crossing the road in the wrong place barely 100 metres from the nearest pedestrian crossing. She moved from the lanes of oncoming traffic, driving next to a Bicycle;
  3. The car is Uber not only didn’t see the pedestrian in advance — he did not see it. To brake, the car was only after the collision;
  4. Insuring the driver in the time of the accident was not looking at the road;
  5. The police, after watching video footage of the car, made a statement that in this situation, probably, it would be impossible to avoid a collision, even if it was driving people;
  6. Chapter Waymo stated that the car his company with this situation would be handled. Below will explain why this is not so unfounded statements.

And now more. First, take a look at the video from the camera car. The time of collision from the video cut out, so not to worry.


This video creates a lot of questions but almost no answers. It can be seen that the woman went into the right lane out of the darkness, when the car was just a few tens of meters. Question: didn’t she see the car? Another question: why are the headlights so bad coverage of the road? Some sources claim that the video footage of the machine itself is dark and actually on the stretch of road at that time of day lighter that allegedly prove video with other registrars.

The more important question concerns the vehicle and its systems pilot. These machines are equipped with lidars, radars and cameras. It is very strange that in normal weather conditions, all these systems did not see the pedestrian. But okay they would not have considered it in the distance, but the crossover did not try to slow down, meaning it to the very end and did not see the pedestrian, while directly due to the collision. One could even wonder why the car was driving at a speed which exceeded the limit defined by the parameters of autopilot systems. That is, if the machine understands that the range of view of its systems in certain circumstances is, for example, 40 meters, the speed should be such that under emergency braking conditions, the braking distance was less than this figure. But this question would be fair if the car even tried to brake, but it was not. From here you can make the assumption that the problem was in the software that drives the autopilot.

Go ahead. A few days ago in the Network got the information that the cars Uber is actually a drone can be called very conditional. The fact is that they too often require the intervention of insuring the driver. More specifically, Uber could not even be an indicator of one intervention on the 21 km, That is, the driver had to intervene in the management more often. And this is an extremely low result.

For comparison, the Nissan, the average is 333 km, Cruise — 2000 km, and at Waymo — altogether unattainable 9000 km! While this is the best, and it is unlikely in the near future that will change. By the way, for this reason, the statement of the head of Waymo that his company would have coped with the situation without casualties, I want to believe.

Against the background of these data the question arises: why insuring the driver, clearly not aware of the most impressive abilities of the autopilot of his car, constantly distracted from the road at night?

In addition, there is evidence that Uber is still a couple of months before the accident were disappointed in their self-driving car project because of lack of autonomy. However, continued testing on public roads, as was the goal — to the end of the year to start the service unmanned taxi. And it already questions to the leadership.

Oh, and for interest I shall give you a picture.

It depicts the crossover Volvo XC90, which uses Uber now and Ford Fusion (known to us under the name Mondeo) used Uber for test systems-pilot until 2016.

As you can see, the early machines were seven lidar and 20 cameras, while the current car is Uber — seven cameras and only one lidar! For comparison, the car Waymo six lidars, and the vehicles Criuse. Yes, radar has increased, but still there are questions of health such configuration. Former employees of Uber claim that after switching to single lidar car appeared blind spots.


To summarize. The car Uber is a lot of questions. The feeling that the autopilot worked quite well, as would in such a situation. There are questions also to the driver and the pedestrian, but the latter, unfortunately, nobody will ask. Apparently, there are questions to some top managers.

I don’t know the specifics of law in Arizona, so do not know whether the police continue to investigate the incident or due to the closure of the trial is automatically closed and the case. If so, then unfortunately, we may never know who is to blame in this situation. Although I’m more inclined to think that road accident the police will continue to investigate. Whatever the outcome, the incident is likely to affect the adoption of certain laws related to the mass emergence of unmanned vehicles on the roads.


0 Comments on “Relatives of the deceased won’t sue Uber. To summarize and ask questions.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *