Video shows self-driving Uber car's fatal collision with pedestrian in Arizona | ABC7

Share this video on

What's Hot

What's New

Top Grossing

Top of the Chart

Recommend

ABC7 : Police in Tempe, Arizona have released some of the video from a fatal crash involving a self-driving Uber vehicle and a pedestrian. FULL STORY: http://abc7.la/2GQLXYN Don't forget to subscribe to our channel. Follow us for more! Facebook: http://abc7.la/2fAUSCp Twitter: http://abc7.la/1fb5GjS Instagram: https://abc7.la/2Kz2VMP

Nun Ya Beeswax : I'm sorry but who walks a bike across a street wearing dark clothes?

greenk77 : 3 faults -- pedestrian wasn't paying attention, driver wasn't paying attention, and the car wasn't paying attention.

Adam Miller : Now I could be wrong but it looks like the pedestrian is wearing BLACK clothes while JAYWALKING in the DARK shadows and not even looking in the direction of oncoming traffic. It is certainly a tragedy for her and her family, as well as the passenger that will remember this for the rest of his life. But don't blame the car technology for someone that didn't look both ways before crossing the street.

Brian Ward : This is a good argument for the radar augmented vs visual self driving systems. Elon Musk thinks that visual only is perfectly fine. This suggests otherwise.

Jack Feder : The system was clearly not using a lidar or not responding to feedback from a lidar system. Video cameras do not have the same dynamic range as a human eye so visual systems rely on electronics are going to have these sorts of problems with dark areas and light areas. Human eyes can adapt to the dark areas much better. Elon Musk thinks that his system can work without a lighter because he is trying to be cheap, but now because of the cheapness of not using a lidar, the entire system is halted and put back for quite some time. In any case, even if you are testing or designing a system that does not require a lidar,, a lidar should be required as a backup redundant system. There should be a lidar system that can override when it determines an imminent accident. The previous fatality also would not have happened if a lidar was used so now both fatalities are clearly by trying to be cheap and not using a lidar.

Liberty Born : The human eye might have perceived the movement across the road, whereas the camera did not. If we're going to allow the introduction of self-driven vehicles, then we should ensure they are more safe than human driving by utilization of such technologies as Forward-looking Infrared Radar (FLIR).

SpaseGoast : She was obscured by the shadow up until the last second, when it was too late. Poor woman, but there really wasn't much the car or person in the car could do.

zagyex : The point is not whether the woman was stupid crossing the street or not. She was. But if the technology is not capable of recognizing someone crossing the street it shouldn't be allowed on public roads. And that's that.

J. Lahtinen : Three things: First, crossing the road, on a dark road, without any reflective gear, and without looking to see whether cars are coming - the main blame here goes to the pedestrian. Second, the time between when she became visible, and when the car hit, is one second. That's barely enough time for an alert driver to start depressing the break pedal, so while the "observer" in the car is to blame for not paying attention, had she payed attention, it wouldn't have made much difference. Third, an empty, unlit road - why doesn't the car have long lights on? Shouldn't the AI recognize the lighting situation and switch them on? And if the AI failed to do that, shouldn't the observer have done it? Had the long lights been on, and the observer be actually observant, there's a chance that an accident could have been avoided - or at least there would have been enough time to break significantly; and to sound the horn to alert the pedestrian to the danger.

Sathaporn Potiswad : I don't think the driver was in the wrong, but this is I like the Cadillac's CT6 system that can see the driver's face and demand you to pay attention to the road.

Rush Limpball : Idiot driver should of been keeping his eyes on the road instead of looking at porn or Tinder or Bumble or whatever else. His reaction to the kill was priceless.

Herman Hermitz : A very typical bicyclist who thinks she owns the road and everybody else should give way. But this time that everybody else is a computer who does not give a damn.

ReligiousZombie : People keep calling the passenger "he." To me it looks like a woman. Anyone know for sure?

Joerg Schweizer : The video is not real! Each attentive human driver could have prevented the women's death. It is simple math: low beam head lights have a range of at least 150feet (60m). In addition there is stray light from street lamps. The women has been in the middle of the road when she became visible. This means at a speed of 38mph (17m/s) the time from the women becoming visible to the impact is approximately 3.5s. Car stopping distance including "thinking time used in The Highway Code" at 38mph is 110 feet. In the video this duration is just over a second. Note also the stark contrast in the video, due to the data compression, shades (transitions from bright to dark) are not visible, the human eye would see a lot more. Conclusion: 1. With a human driver, the lady would be alive. 2. The video is manipulated or of such a low quality that it actually hides the most important details. 3. Uber's automated car completely failed and its safety is worse than a human driven car. We can only speculate if the video has been purposely edited or whether it is just the bad quality; why is there no better video available from such a high-tech car? why the police officer made such a bold statement based on such a weak evidence, blaming the victim?

Bainsworth : i feel i could have noticed the legs in the headlight and stopped the car or at least brought the speed down to a bruised hip and some grazing, this computer using the speed of light reflexes failed to show any slowing down. you could see the thing behind the wheel wasnt even thrown forward, so no brakes applied. This technology is far from being baked properly

Dragonblood : The visual system surely has its flaws as seen in this video. But lidar and radar sensors should have easily saw what's coming. It's the cars fault not reacting solely because of its 3D scanning data.

Soft Kitty : What they call "auto pilots" are obviously "cruise control" with a fancy name.

Jefferson J Morales : ..... i just want to point something out.. It's dark.. You see headlights..and yet.. You don't wait for the street to be clear? And yes we need to stop self driving vehicles for now

bkmswspjm : Jebane kutwy. Jak mnie wykrywają ludzie myślący, że samochód zatrzymuje sie natychmiast w jednym miejscu. LUDZIE, myślcie troche! Z tego co pamietam, to ludzi mózg reaguje na tego typu sytuacje w 0,3 sekundy, niby malo, ale przy jakis 60km/h to dużo, i nie ma szans na zatrzymanie się w odległości 5m, tymbardziej w nocy, gdy bezmózgi chodzą po drogach bez odblasków.

Frouwko Wisman : first of all, my condolences to her friends, It must be so painful for you to go through this. Clearly some human errors are involved here. However, it doesn't seem such an unlikely situation for me at all. Could have been a deer or other wild animal that crosses the street at night, I really wonder how could this happen because this doesn't seem like a black swan situation at all. Why does the car not recognize orthogonal movement in the dark before the car?.. This error should not have been paid by a human life!

Drogoganor : People are speculating this footage has been doctored by Uber, to make it seem darker than it really is

zztop3000 : Darwin awards

Juan Carlos M R : Maybe the car not make any sound, and this is the real ilumination in that street? Other video to compare

HammeringTruth : Braking is only part of the issue, the car had plenty of time to veer to the left but never did. Public roads should not be used for failed experimentation.

Sam Sham : If the car was on self-driving mode (which I believe it was, the driver wasn't paying attention because he was relying on the self-driving system) and the sensors failed to recognize the pedestrian they should suspend the entire driverless cars.

dumbo7429 : Victim was NOT "jaywalking" or "suddenly" stepping in front of vehicle. Was lawfully crossing rd .Was wearing reflective items. Family can sue authourties that allowed Uber to use people on public roads as living crash test dimmies to test their autobots $$$$$

Marla Lukofsky : It is totally legal to cross the road, walking ones bike across that road if there is no traffic cross light nearby. She was walking her bike, slowly, carefully. If she was wrapped in flourescent yellow, she still would have been murdered by this Uber car and driver because the car didn't work with its censors and the driver was texting or reading. Done. Now someone is dead. Stop blaming the victim.

sarancha1 : It needs to add an IR sensor for a night driving.

dumbo7429 : "Driver" NOT WATCHING NOT HOLDING STEERING WHEEL SO NOT RESPONSABLE FOR KILLING WTF WTF WTF oh i understand now UBER MAKING $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

esqueue : The majority of the fault goes to the pedestrian for walking in front of a speeding vehicle. The unfortunate thing is that she probably expected it to be someone that will stop for her and not continue driving. Second, the safety driver was not doing her job at all. She most likely would have seen a passenger completely ignoring a speeding vehicle and probably would have held brakes. While she was partially at fault, the punishment of living with this and being fired and maybe even charges brought up on her is severe enough punishment. All jobs where I can put people's life in jeopardy I sign disclaimers that state that charges can be brought up on me if I am negligent. Finally, Obviously the car for not working properly.

Kevin DeLuna : It's called a driver not paying attention

Alex Ramos : I have a great idea..!! Lets just blame it on the dumb person for not paying attention. Lets continue the self driving project, eventually replacing uber drivers with AI. Lowering cost of uber trips so that those who survive can get to the hospital for little to no money. Common people whos on board..!?

Somniad : I'm never reading the comments about anything related to self-driving cars again. The quantity of stupid here is completely unbearable.

Bainsworth : I believe if we are to use this tech, it should be speed restricted. The benefits are huge for self driving cars, but if these sorts of malfunctions can happen, theres absolutely no need for automated driving to be around human speeds, 30kph is absolutely useful but immensely safer

xxBlackpspxx : I am wondering if the driver would have been able to see him? I thought the sensors of self driving cars are better than human eyes??

matty t : homeless people don't obey traffic laws, they have given up on life, why obey laws

David Hernandez : Holly shit.... I think that the car didn't try to stop. I think that in that case, I wouldn't have been able to stop before hiting the woman. But I also think that I would have push the brakes before hit her. The cars should have thermal vision.

Omar Travi : The lady didn't have no business being there that's her fault

Joanne Lewis : Omg ?? Ok my ma told me to always look both ways but that car was out for blood the way it hit her was like I see u but I’m speed up & hit her

Beaulieu Philippe : What about infrared cameras?

srschirm : It looks like the pedestrian literally came out of nowhere.

46724389653 3576423171 : this is some nightmare shit

Чернявский Антон : 1) the way it looks - the outcome with an ordinary driver at the wheel would have been the same. 2) why the far lights are off? Clearly it was a poorly lit part of the road. 3) as error-prone as humans is not enough for bot-driven cars, they need to be safer to be accepted.

mneedes2 : So what multiplier must driverless cars be better than normal drivers to be allowed on the roads? 400x better? All I know is that the idiot that cut me off today in a BMW (fancy that) as well as the road rager I encountered yesterday who cuts off two cars and then proceeded to tailgate the third would not be a factor if driverless cars existed.

Rosanna Berckley : The "driver" saw her way earlier and she was quite visible. Even just a second of applying the breaks would have likely made the accident severe but not fatal. 100% the driver and uber's fault, they should be charged with manslaughter. Imagine if that lady was your mom, wouldn't you be furious?

John Doe : Dark cloths, was not under the street light when she walked out, no chance in hell of prevention from the driver's perspective, autonomous or otherwise. If this video is any reflection of the conditions of the accident, I think a reasonable person would let this slide. Unlikely a human would have done any better. Very sad for the pedestrian and her family.

Red Forman : Everyone would hit her. By the time you see her it's too late.

Neon White : Now tell me you would've been able to do better if that had been you driving that car...

RCMovers : WTH is that behind the wheel of the car????