Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by TillE 3000 days ago
Uber has said essentially nothing about their crash, it's the cops who rushed out and got nearly everything wrong. Uber clearly had a serious technical failure, but there's been no PR spin from them.
2 comments

I think it is possible that the Tempe police chief and mayor anticipated the incident could be a problem for them, especially given the secret agreement that later came out, and chose to try to spin the story on their own account. It is not hard to imagine that, in that frame of mind, they might be receptive to someone from Uber saying "clearly this was unavoidable", but I have no way of knowing whether any such conversation took place.

Then there is the question of whether the Uber-supplied video accurately represents the lighting conditions at the time... This may seem unduly conspiratorial, but I gave both Uber and the Tempe administration the benefit of the doubt until it became clear that the initial reports were innaccurate and less complete than they could have been.

It seems like the dash cam video released is very misleading there's been a couple people who've driven through the same area at night and it is well lit. [0] From the Uber cam it seems like the light is still on because there's a bright glow about where streetlights are in the other videos. It's kind of shocking just how bad the dash cam of the incident actually is unless the lights were recently (because there's still the glow) off for some reason before dawn (poorly implemented scheduling maybe?).

The difference between the Uber dash cam [1] and the one posted to youtube is stark [2]. It's certainly darker where she comes from but no where near impossible. Source the ArsTechnica article [3]

[0] https://youtu.be/CRW0q8i3u6E?t=32

[1] https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Scree...

[2] https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/kaufm...

[3] https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/police-chief-said-uber-...

> Then there is the question of whether the Uber-supplied video accurately represents the lighting conditions at the time...

Why would that matter? The issue here is that the LIDAR system failed to detect the pedestrian.

It's of tremendous importance from the perspective of public perception of who's at fault.

If the average observer watching the published video arrives at a conclusion of "well I would have hit that person too, she appeared out of nowhere in front of the car", it obviously matters.

It's not important at all. There's a bug in Uber's software. That's what we should be talking about.
It does seem that there is a problem with the vehicle's lidar or the associated software, so does it not strike you as strange that the story being pushed claimed that the victim "came out of the shadows", which is a misleading irrelevance if lidar is the primary sensing technology? Especially as the unrealistically dark video does not even seem to fit that story.
Yes. That's why I am posting in this thread.
No you're right, the police happily pointed out that the woman was homeless and seemed to blame the victim. Why would they do that?

It's reasonable to assume it's to keep Uber happy.

> No you're right, the police happily pointed out that the woman was homeless and seemed to blame the victim. Why would they do that?

Because A.R.S says that pedestrians have a duty to yield outside of crosswalks and they normally make the police's accident report available shortly after any accident.

I know because I was over there not very long ago trying to get one for someone else. It's just off of Mill Ave., not very far south of where this accident happened.

> Because A.R.S says that pedestrians have a duty to yield outside of crosswalks and they normally make the police's accident report available shortly after any accident.

Regardless, it is normal to wait until an investigation is complete before you start making statements. Making premature statements actually makes the results of any investigation look suspect. Pretty dumb move.

Oh, and even if the woman is at fault that does not mean it is open season on pedestrians that happen to end up on the road.

Unless they're doing something special I haven't read about, that was the investigation by police. They don't spend a long time on every accident in my experience. What happened in our case was the driver turning left was cited for failure to yield. Case closed, next.

And I think a lot of people here don't have much experience driving these roads at night. More lights don't really help, there are too many lights on some level, you can see stoplights and such a good mile away, and pedestrians are moving shadows at night.

I had to train myself to notice them more after some weird experiences like the strange, uncoordinated bicyclist driving circles in the middle of a road for no reason in the middle of the night.

I'm sure there are things Uber and the safety driver could've done better, but I fully believe they really didn't notice them. That's right near an overpass and moving between lit and shadowed places also screws with your vision.

And FWIW, I've driven extensively here at night and I know that stretch of Mill Ave. rather well. I used to drive from Mill Ave to Van Buran, going through Papago park.

The police made those statements while the body was still warm, I highly doubt they could have properly investigated this particular accident in that time. It mostly looked like they were actively looking to pin the blame on the pedestrian somehow.

Note that as a part of the responsibility for a 2 ton piece of steel you get the expectation that you will do your best to keep the other traffic participants alive even when they break the rules, especially when they are more vulnerable than you are.

They saw a video that showed that she failed to yield and found a body that wasn't anywhere near a crosswalk. There was nothing more for them to investigate at that point, because the other points weren't relevant. So they were very likely done with their investigation at that point.

It was a horrific accident and there's pretty much always something someone could have done better, but as far as traffic laws go, it was her responsibility to make sure it was safe to cross. I get that you disagree with that and I can see where you're coming from, but the law says the duty was on her side.

Uber could, and should, do better than this. I believe the NTSB can (and should) demand that of them and everyone else, in fact. But the cops don't even enter into that. They're pretty much just going to figure out which traffic laws were broken and who had right of way.

There's a fair point that maybe they should be able to, I don't know, inspect the LIDAR sensors or something, but I don't think anything like that will be practical for at least a decade or two. To my knowledge, that should be up to the NTSB for now.

I'm not terribly sure its Uber. It actually looks like something to do with keeping the Governor happy. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/28/uber-ariz...