[Natsu]

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.

[jacquesm]

Not being near a crosswalk actually means in most places that you are allowed to cross there. You will obviously have to yield for other traffic but pedestrians crossing the road are an expected thing, wherever you drive. The vehicle braking or not braking would be one input into deciding whether the driver was under the influence and could shift liability from the pedestrian to the driver to some extent.

In lots of places a sobriety/drug test is mandatory after an accident with severe injuries or fatalities.

And if the driver were to be found not to have braked at all - or even to accelerate - the driver could very well lose their license. Even when you have the right of way you still have to behave like a responsible driver would.

If inspecting the full digital record by the police is not feasible then I would argue self driving cars have no business being on the road at all. After all, we require normal drivers to be witnesses to accidents as well, and we expect them to cooperate in tests to determine whether or not they were able to control their vehicle, especially in fatal accidents.

In this case one of the participants is dead and the other one is silicon so the only evidence taken is the same as if all participants had died and that's not true, at least one of them had a lot of evidence to give, and given the novel nature of the incident there was a very good reason to actually evaluate that evidence.

Being 'automated' should not be an automatic get-out-of-jail card with respect to your liability and your proven ability to control a vehicle, at least the same standards that apply to regular drivers should apply to automation.

[Natsu]

I suspect they did check the human for inebriation, but I saw no indication the driver was drunk, so I expect that didn't matter. I honestly don't think they would have cited a human driver in this circumstance unless they left the scene of the accident or were drunk.

I think the problem people have here is that this was treated exactly like a normal accident and maybe they shouldn't have. But we have the NTSB to examine the engineering of the car, that's not something the cops are equipped to do.

The police did their check and released their report once it was done, which is a very standard practice. It can't have taken them that long--the police station where you get accident reports is on the other side of the Mill Ave. bridge from the accident.