Bicyclists and Crosswalks

[Tim Athan]

Reports of the recent autonomous vehicle killing of a bicyclist make much of the reported information that the cyclist entered the road outside of any crosswalk.

Is such entry improper? Other vehicles can enter traffic flow from anywhere along the road, such as parking places and driveways; doesn’t that apply to bicyclists, too?

[Ken Freeman]

It doesn't matter if the entry is proper or improper.  The statutes cannot permit a vehicle to strike another road user with impunity under any conditions.  It cannot be ok to strike a cyclist or a pedestrian, regardless of whether the person entered the road at the designated place.  It is never acceptable to not be vigilant.  Similarly, for the pedestrian or cyclist, it can never be fully safe to relax vigilance.

Ken Freeman

Ann Arbor, MI USA

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Tim Athan <Tim....@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Reports of the recent autonomous vehicle killing of a bicyclist make much of the reported information that the cyclist entered the road outside of any crosswalk.

Is such entry improper?  Other vehicles can enter traffic flow from anywhere along the road, such as parking places and driveways; doesn’t that apply to bicyclists, too?

--
Please note that WBWC google groups is an unmoderated forum. It was developed by the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition as a tool for bikers and walkers to discuss key issues and share information. However, not all views expressed in this group are the views or values of WBWC. For more information about WBWC, meetings, and projects, please visit www.wbwc.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wbwc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to wb...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/wbwc.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Ken Freeman
Ann Arbor, MI USA

[Tim Athan]

No, Ken, circumstances do matter.  To take an extreme example, if someone makes a sudden, unexpected move into the path of a vehicle, in a manner such that driver response time plus minimum braking distance make a stop in time physically impossible, the driver would be without liability if driving properly for the environment.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wbwc+uns...@googlegroups.com.

[John Hritz]

The critical thing for me on this topic is that the media is comparing the camera view of the crash to the sensor view.  The car is not using video for target identification.  At a minimum this car had a laser range finder (LIDAR) and most probably had microwave as well (used for adaptive cruise and autobraking).  The image of her emerging from the shadows suggests the car had no time to react, but the sensors have more range and electromagnetic spectrum to work with than the human eye.  Suggesting otherwise is misleading.

Beyond the autonomous aspects of this, modern vehicles have pedestrian and crash mitigation features.  Volvos ship with City Safety that will automatically brake if there is a collision imminent.  I think the car was going too fast for City Safety to be active.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_safety

Also Volvo at one point had a pedestrian airbag in their cars that should have prevented the "run under" injuries.  I don't know whether the XC90 has one, but the V40 does.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2Aw4eZoijk

On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 5:41:02 PM UTC-4, Ken Freeman wrote:

It doesn't matter if the entry is proper or improper.  The statutes cannot permit a vehicle to strike another road user with impunity under any conditions.  It cannot be ok to strike a cyclist or a pedestrian, regardless of whether the person entered the road at the designated place.  It is never acceptable to not be vigilant.  Similarly, for the pedestrian or cyclist, it can never be fully safe to relax vigilance.

Ken Freeman

Ann Arbor, MI USA

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Tim Athan <Tim....@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Reports of the recent autonomous vehicle killing of a bicyclist make much of the reported information that the cyclist entered the road outside of any crosswalk.

Is such entry improper?  Other vehicles can enter traffic flow from anywhere along the road, such as parking places and driveways; doesn’t that apply to bicyclists, too?

--
Please note that WBWC google groups is an unmoderated forum. It was developed by the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition as a tool for bikers and walkers to discuss key issues and share information. However, not all views expressed in this group are the views or values of WBWC. For more information about WBWC, meetings, and projects, please visit www.wbwc.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wbwc+uns...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to wb...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/wbwc.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Ken Clark]

First, she was walking the bike, as we now know from the video, so the bike had nothing to do with it.

Second, it depends on the local laws.  Under the Michigan Uniform Traffic Code ordinances in place in most of Michigan, you could argue that she legally entered the road, or that she failed to yield to traffic that was already there.   From the location, it looks as though she was fine until she got to that last lane, and probably crossed the median at a boulevard turn.  So, she legally entered the first side of the road, crossed the median in a way that isn't clear if it's legal or not, and was crossing the second half of the road.  Really hard to say if what she did was illegal.

However, also under Michigan UTC ordinances, the motorist has a responsibility to avoid a collision with a pedestrian, which this system and backup driver utterly failed to do.  Didn't even hit the brakes when a collision was clearly imminent.

Also, the Uber vehicle was speeding, doing 38mph in a 35mph zone. 

Personally, I hope the woman's family sues Uber for a substantial wrongful death settlement.  Uber's system isn't safe to be on the road yet, clearly.

One other point.  Usually, there's an obscure law that says motorists have to enter the roadway at a curb cut of some kind, so no, not just anywhere.  Obviously, that doesn't apply to pedestrians.  It's not clear if it applies to cyclists.  I've always assumed that cyclists can switch from roadway to sidewalk whenever it's safe to do so.  But I do wonder about that.

Ken

---

From: Tim Athan <Tim....@sbcglobal.net>
To: WBWC List <wb...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 9:18 AM
Subject: [WBWC Discussion Forum] Bicyclists and Crosswalks

Reports of the recent autonomous vehicle killing of a bicyclist make much of the reported information that the cyclist entered the road outside of any crosswalk.

Is such entry improper?  Other vehicles can enter traffic flow from anywhere along the road, such as parking places and driveways; doesn’t that apply to bicyclists, too?

--

Please note that WBWC google groups is an unmoderated forum. It was developed by the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition as a tool for bikers and walkers to discuss key issues and share information. However, not all views expressed in this group are the views or values of WBWC. For more information about WBWC, meetings, and projects, please visit www.wbwc.org

---

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wbwc+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Ken Freeman]

It may not be possible to assign liability in some cases, but the law can't imply or suggest "you are permitted to run over a pedestrian or cyclist if you think you can get away with it."

On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 9:42:53 AM UTC-4, Brawny Lad wrote:

No, Ken, circumstances do matter.  To take an extreme example, if someone makes a sudden, unexpected move into the path of a vehicle, in a manner such that driver response time plus minimum braking distance make a stop in time physically impossible, the driver would be without liability if driving properly for the environment.

On Mar 22, 2018, at 5:41 PM, Ken Freeman <kenfre...@gmail.com> wrote:

It doesn't matter if the entry is proper or improper.  The statutes cannot permit a vehicle to strike another road user with impunity under any conditions.  It cannot be ok to strike a cyclist or a pedestrian, regardless of whether the person entered the road at the designated place.  It is never acceptable to not be vigilant.  Similarly, for the pedestrian or cyclist, it can never be fully safe to relax vigilance.

Ken Freeman

Ann Arbor, MI USA

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Tim Athan <Tim....@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Reports of the recent autonomous vehicle killing of a bicyclist make much of the reported information that the cyclist entered the road outside of any crosswalk.

Is such entry improper?  Other vehicles can enter traffic flow from anywhere along the road, such as parking places and driveways; doesn’t that apply to bicyclists, too?

--
Please note that WBWC google groups is an unmoderated forum. It was developed by the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition as a tool for bikers and walkers to discuss key issues and share information. However, not all views expressed in this group are the views or values of WBWC. For more information about WBWC, meetings, and projects, please visit www.wbwc.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wbwc+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to wb...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/wbwc.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Ken Freeman
Ann Arbor, MI USA

[John Hritz]

We now have confirmation that Uber disabled the XC90's standard collision avoidance system.  This vehicle also had a reduced sensor count compared to similar vehicles.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-26/uber-disabled-volvo-suv-s-standard-safety-system-before-fatality

[Ken Clark]

Actually, there's a provision in Uniform Vehicle Code, that's been there since 2000 at least, that makes it illegal to hit a pedestrian if it was avoidable. 

"Drivers to exercise due care

Notwithstanding other provisions of this chapter or the provisions of any local ordinance, every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian or any person propelling a human powered vehicle and shall give an audible signal when necessary, and shall exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any obviously confused, incapacitated or intoxicated person."

Michigan's UTC is a slightly different version:

"R 28.1716 Rule 716. Drivers; exercising due care; violation as civil infraction.
(1) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this part, every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care
to avoid colliding with any pedestrian on any roadway, shall give warning by sounding the horn when
necessary, and shall exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any confused or
incapacitated person on a roadway.
(2) A person who violates this rule is responsible for a civil infraction."

Who's surprised that Michigan's version drops the clause about 'human powered vehicle'?  Pure Michigan.

And I think it's a stitch that when you reply to an email from Tim, he becomes "Brawny Lad"!!!  Have to figure out how to do that.  I want to be 'Iron Man' or something :-)  Although karma would probably give me 'going to seed' instead :-(

Ken (Clark)

---

From: Ken Freeman <kenfre...@gmail.com>
To: Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition <wb...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: [WBWC Discussion Forum] Bicyclists and Crosswalks

[Ken Freeman]

Then any blame to be laid on technology would seem to be applicable to Uber, rather than to Volvo or Aptiva.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wbwc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to wb...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/wbwc.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Ken Freeman]

Wow, regarding the HPV exclusion!

--
Please note that WBWC google groups is an unmoderated forum. It was developed by the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition as a tool for bikers and walkers to discuss key issues and share information. However, not all views expressed in this group are the views or values of WBWC. For more information about WBWC, meetings, and projects, please visit www.wbwc.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wbwc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to wb...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/wbwc.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Ken Freeman]

No, Brawny Lad, while they do matter, I don't believe there is a traffic situation where the person whose car just killed another road user can just look at what just happened and say "well, it is obviously all the fault of the victim, and none of mine!" and just walk away.  For one thing, that would be equivalent to "hit and run."  After review or investigation there might be no legal or moral basis for a criminal case, but it takes expertise to judge this.  I don't believe jaywalking violators are simply open to being run over because they violated a traffic law.  

On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 9:42:53 AM UTC-4, Brawny Lad wrote:

No, Ken, circumstances do matter.  To take an extreme example, if someone makes a sudden, unexpected move into the path of a vehicle, in a manner such that driver response time plus minimum braking distance make a stop in time physically impossible, the driver would be without liability if driving properly for the environment.

On Mar 22, 2018, at 5:41 PM, Ken Freeman <kenfre...@gmail.com> wrote:

It doesn't matter if the entry is proper or improper.  The statutes cannot permit a vehicle to strike another road user with impunity under any conditions.  It cannot be ok to strike a cyclist or a pedestrian, regardless of whether the person entered the road at the designated place.  It is never acceptable to not be vigilant.  Similarly, for the pedestrian or cyclist, it can never be fully safe to relax vigilance.

Ken Freeman

Ann Arbor, MI USA

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Tim Athan <Tim....@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Reports of the recent autonomous vehicle killing of a bicyclist make much of the reported information that the cyclist entered the road outside of any crosswalk.

Is such entry improper?  Other vehicles can enter traffic flow from anywhere along the road, such as parking places and driveways; doesn’t that apply to bicyclists, too?

--
Please note that WBWC google groups is an unmoderated forum. It was developed by the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition as a tool for bikers and walkers to discuss key issues and share information. However, not all views expressed in this group are the views or values of WBWC. For more information about WBWC, meetings, and projects, please visit www.wbwc.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wbwc+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to wb...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/wbwc.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Ken Freeman
Ann Arbor, MI USA

[John Hritz]

There is scene near the end of Sully where they attempt to duplicate the landing in the Hudson using the blackbox and a simulator. It seems to me that data collection on that scale would separate what is possible for an autonomous car, a skilled human driver and a novice. I suspect we will find that many car-bike/ped collisions are completely avoidable and that some fall into the highly unlikely to avoid category.

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/wbwc/J9q2hjNfdE0/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to wbwc+uns...@googlegroups.com.

[Ken Freeman]

John, I agree the media assumption is MOST LIKELY wrong, but we don't have the access to confirm that.  

I tend to look at thise issues as collision mitigation/avoidance problems, not narrowly as pedestrian/cycle collision avoidance - in industry the issues are finally converging, though not yet married.  I think this vehicle and its design concept may not be safe enough for live testing in a naturalistic driving environment.  

Other points:

1. We know that Uber had the Volvo safety equipment switched off.  What we don't know is what they had operating during that drive, nor in what scenarios prior to the pedestrian collision is actually did function well.  We basically don't know if the capability of the Uber system.

2. In the same vein, yes it should have had LIDAR for 360 degree scenario capture and tracking, microwave and near micro radar (77GHz and 26GHz respectively for vehicle/object detection and tracking, and the ability to track and avoid detected objects without any visibiity in the visual range of frequencies.  But all of those can have trouble detecting and identifying a person or a bicycle.  For the person it should have conventional passive Far Infrared (FIR) sensors detecting and positioning the warm bodies of humans and wildlife.

3. The monitor driver was just not attentive.  She needed to see when the Uber sensors had detected the woman with cycle and to apply caution when no system action was apparent. To support this, high beam should have automatically been on.  For her lack of attentiveness, there should have been an infrared system observing the driver (safe NIR so as not to cause glare or be harmful), capable of recognizing closed eyes and the gaze direction of open eyes.  I know Volvo and others have this technology and that it is very capable.

The death of the bike-walker is IMO a shameful lack of coverage by Uber and a terrible personal loss, but it also raises doubts about what can happen when a non-vehicle company begins to cheapen and eliminate features.  As an automotive person whom has done systems engineering on lower-automation but highly equipped test vehicles, I know much better can be done and should have been done.  If it is not in the future, systematic design errors will enable the occurrence of many more safety problems than we have seen so far.

If the technology does not to in a much, much more safety-aware direction, it will be a lot worse in the future.  Prototype car or not.

[Ken Clark]

1) As Ken pointed out, Uber turns off the Volvo crash avoidance system.

2) The only "she" involved in the crash was the woman who was crossing the street. 

3) Apparently Arizona's governor had *just* signed a law, effective 3/1, that would make Uber criminally liable for that crash.  Really looking forward to them getting their shirts sued off.  That might get the rest of the also ran's to test their systems as much as Waymo has.  There's a reason Waymo is being cautious...

Wrote Ó Faoláin

(heehee)

---

From: Ken Freeman <kenfre...@gmail.com>

To: Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition <wb...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 4, 2018 7:28 PM

Subject: Re: [WBWC Discussion Forum] Bicyclists and Crosswalks

[Ken Clark]

Wait, what?  Apparently 2 below is wrong.  The media reports have been all over the map on whether it's Rafael or Rafaela, and whether it's the same person with a felony record, etc. 

Wrote Ó Faoláin the foolish

:-(

---

From: Ken Clark <kenc...@ameritech.net>
To: "wb...@googlegroups.com" <wb...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2018 10:12 AM

Subject: Re: [WBWC Discussion Forum] Bicyclists and Crosswalks

1) As Ken pointed out, Uber turns off the Volvo crash avoidance system.

2) The only "she" involved in the crash was the woman who was crossing the street. 

3) Apparently Arizona's governor had *just* signed a law, effective 3/1, that would make Uber criminally liable for that crash.  Really looking forward to them getting their shirts sued off.  That might get the rest of the also ran's to test their systems as much as Waymo has.  There's a reason Waymo is being cautious...

Wrote Ó Faoláin

(heehee)

---

From: Ken Freeman <kenfre...@gmail.com>
To: Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition <wb...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 4, 2018 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: [WBWC Discussion Forum] Bicyclists and Crosswalks

John, I agree the media assumption is MOST LIKELY wrong, but we don't have the access to confirm that.  

I tend to look at thise issues as collision mitigation/avoidance problems, not narrowly as pedestrian/cycle collision avoidance - in industry the issues are finally converging, though not yet married.  I think this vehicle and its design concept may not be safe enough for live testing in a naturalistic driving environment.  

Other points:

1. We know that Uber had the Volvo safety equipment switched off.  What we don't know is what they had operating during that drive, nor in what scenarios prior to the pedestrian collision is actually did function well.  We basically don't know if the capability of the Uber system.

2. In the same vein, yes it should have had LIDAR for 360 degree scenario capture and tracking, microwave and near micro radar (77GHz and 26GHz respectively for vehicle/object detection and tracking, and the ability to track and avoid detected objects without any visibiity in the visual range of frequencies.  But all of those can have trouble detecting and identifying a person or a bicycle.  For the person it should have conventional passive Far Infrared (FIR) sensors detecting and positioning the warm bodies of humans and wildlife.

3. The monitor driver was just not attentive.  She needed to see when the Uber sensors had detected the woman with cycle and to apply caution when no system action was apparent. To support this, high beam should have automatically been on.  For her lack of attentiveness, there should have been an infrared system observing the driver (safe NIR so as not to cause glare or be harmful), capable of recognizing closed eyes and the gaze direction of open eyes.  I know Volvo and others have this technology and that it is very capable.

The death of the bike-walker is IMO a shameful lack of coverage by Uber and a terrible personal loss, but it also raises doubts about what can happen when a non-vehicle company begins to cheapen and eliminate features.  As an automotive person whom has done systems engineering on lower-automation but highly equipped test vehicles, I know much better can be done and should have been done.  If it is not in the future, systematic design errors will enable the occurrence of many more safety problems than we have seen so far.

If the technology does not to in a much, much more safety-aware direction, it will be a lot worse in the future.  Prototype car or not.

[Ken Freeman]

As I understand it, or perhaps interpret it, Uber is developing its own autonomous vehicle control system using the Volvo as a hosting platform.  So when the Uber system reaches appropriate maturity it will make sense to switch off the Volvo system.

[Ken Freeman]

Are you talking about the person behind the wheel of the Uber car?

[Tim Athan]

Ken, here’s an extreme example that was reviewed in an accident reconstruction class:

A truck hit a pedestrian who was in the middle of the highway lane, and the pedestrian was killed.  The driver was exonerated by the truck's video camera.  It showed that this pedestrian had carefully hidden to avoid detection, then threw himself in front of the truck, to kill himself.

[Ken Freeman]

Tim, in my opinion a camera cannot exonerate.  It can provide information that may be useful as evidence in some kind of authoritative proceeding.  That information can result in exoneration. “Exonerate” means to clear from accusation or blame, so it’s a decision where the question was, could someone be worthy of blame.  Only a person can decide to exonerate another person.

The appearance that a proceeding or analysis is needed to determine there WAS no crime or liability is opposite to the idea that an action is legal.  I’m not saying that a person shall receive criminal punishment for an accident.  But when a collision must be reviewed and analyzed to determine if it was accidental (and hence nobody is worthy of blame), then the collision was not necessarily legal.  If not, then hit and run is legal and nobody needs to report having caused a death if they thought they were not at fault, such as in case of a shooting.

I’m not a lawyer nor trained in collision analysis.  I am an automotive electrical systems engineer who has contributed to collision avoidance systems, at the levels of design, architecting, operations definition, standardization, testing, and feature development.  I think this Uber matter and similar ones are better looked at in terms of preventing harm to people, fatality, and damage to property, than in terms of blame and who pays.  We don’t even really know how it happened.  So what if we blame the driverl or the victim (as low as that seems)?   In the bigger picture Uber and it’s suppliers (including for software) will need to make their product safe enough to be driven on public roads, and make it behave safely if it is faulty.  It’s not safe to keep a dangerous car moving because it’s not illegal to do so.

I think I am not getting your point.  You seem to be speaking of legality, but I don’t think that’s the real issue.  

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wbwc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to wb...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/wbwc.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Please note that WBWC google groups is an unmoderated forum. It was developed by the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition as a tool for bikers and walkers to discuss key issues and share information. However, not all views expressed in this group are the views or values of WBWC. For more information about WBWC, meetings, and projects, please visit www.wbwc.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wbwc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to wb...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/wbwc.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Ken Clark]

Wait, so you disagree with the example Tim posed?  Someone very carefully uses someone else and their car as a suicide weapon, and an unwitting motorist then bears some guilt for it?  I think that's a pretty extreme example - very few situations would fit that, and I would think there would have to be some more evidence that it really was a suicide - but not even that?  Jumping off an overpass onto the LIDAR?

Let me agree with you on two parts of that, however.  1) If there is such a situation where someone could conceal themselves that close to moving traffic, a prudent driver (and any self-driving system should be a 'prudent driver') will slow down because of poor sight distance.  That's essentially State Street by campus, with two narrow lanes and on-street parking.  2) The motorist would still have to be exonerated in court.  (I wonder if this last part is the biggest disagreement between the two of you.)

And, BTW, part of the problem with the Uber system on the Volvos is that they dropped all but one of their LIDAR systems, creating a close-and-low-to-the-ground gap in its resolution.  Doesn't help that the XC90 roof is higher than the sedans they had used before.  They were 'supposedly' using radar to cover that gap, but that seems to have failed.  Is that what you mean by 'we don't know how it happened'?

Ken

---

From: Ken Freeman <kenfre...@gmail.com>

To: "wb...@googlegroups.com" <wb...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 6, 2018 10:41 AM

Subject: Re: [WBWC Discussion Forum] Bicyclists and Crosswalks

[Ken Clark]

Going back to this original question for a second, this median is practically an invitation for pedestrians to cross.  Self-Driving Uber Crash Highlights Bigger Problem: Metro Phoenix Is Hell for Pedestrians

Self-Driving Uber Crash Highlights Bigger Problem: Metro Phoenix Is Hell fo... By Antonia Noori Farzan It was almost inevitable this would happen here.

It has wide, paved, 'ornamental' paths, with signs saying that it's not for pedestrians to use.  No one can have any wonder at why she was using it.  An 'ornamental' paved path across a median, with signs telling you not to use it???  After Uber gets sued, whoever came up with that crossing, and whoever decided to put up the signs, should be sued next.

Oh, and notice the string of twitter messages is from an 'Eric Paul Dennis', of Ann Arbor MI!  Get that guy on here!

Ken

---

From: Tim Athan <Tim....@sbcglobal.net>
To: WBWC List <wb...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 9:18 AM

Subject: [WBWC Discussion Forum] Bicyclists and Crosswalks

[Ken Freeman]

I don't disagree with your example.  I disagree with the concept that it is an example of what is legal and what is not. I think it's example of cases in which an examination of guilt will result in no guilt being found.  The distinction is that if is really legal, there would not have to be a hearing, trial, or whatever to have decided it was an unavoidable situation.  

I don't have twitter, it makes my life too busy. I don't believe it can be decided to be factual news.

How do we know the technical configuration and status of the Uber vehicle.  I haven't seen it here, nor in some other places I watch.

I also just saw the Twitters, and yes, the infrastructure is quite sad.  Doesn't let the car or the driver off the hook, however, IMO.

If what you've read is true that the remaining LIDAR was aimed too high, just sheesh!

--
Please note that WBWC google groups is an unmoderated forum. It was developed by the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition as a tool for bikers and walkers to discuss key issues and share information. However, not all views expressed in this group are the views or values of WBWC. For more information about WBWC, meetings, and projects, please visit www.wbwc.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wbwc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to wb...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/wbwc.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[John Hritz]

I am not a lawyer either but one doctrine that I think should apply to reasoning about pedestrian collisions is the Last Clear Chance law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_clear_chance

Neither the Uber car nor the backup driver deflected from the collision path or adjusted speed to reduce the severity of the crash.  With the advent of cameras and other sensor data it will be hard to justify not reacting to a pedestrian in the roadway.  Courts can decide if the crossing was lawful later.  You should still have to avoid the collision if it is possible to do so safely.  There will be debates on whether autonomous cars ought to avoid the crash even if it damages the car.  There will be less debate on whether the avoidance can risk the occupants safety.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wbwc+uns...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to wb...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/wbwc.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Ken Freeman]

Very interesting, and it reveals how complex a seemingly simple question of blame could become!  

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wbwc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to wb...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/wbwc.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.