Woman at the wheel of self-driving Uber car that killed a pedestrian is charged with negligent homicide
(2020/09/16)
- Reference: 1600294645
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/09/16/charges_for_selfdriving_uber_operator/
- Source link:
The woman who was behind the wheel of a self-driving Uber car when it hit and killed a pedestrian has been charged with negligent homicide.
Prosecutors in Maricopa, Arizona, today said that following her grand jury indictment, Rafaela Vasquez will go on trial for the death of Elaine Herzberg. Vasquez, who [1]was charged [PDF] under the name Rafael, pleaded not guilty. She was released with an ankle tracker ahead of her October 27 trial.
Herzberg was crossing the street on foot in Tempe, Arizona, at around 10pm on March 18, 2018, when she was [2]hit by an Uber car under computer control. Judging from footage taken by a video camera mounted inside the Volvo XC90 SUV, Vasquez, whose job it was to watch the road and apply emergency braking for the artificially intelligent vehicle when necessary, appeared to be [3]looking down at her phone just before the crash. Herzberg, 49, died of her injuries in hospital.
"Distracted driving is an issue of great importance in our community," [4]said Allister Adel, Maricopa County attorney. "When a driver gets behind the wheel of a car, they have a responsibility to control and operate that vehicle safely and in a law-abiding manner."
While [5]no criminal charges were brought against Uber as a company, the fallout from the accident was disastrous for its robo-ride program. Aside from the poor publicity and public outcry, the death led Arizona's governor to withdraw permission for Uber to test its vehicles on the US state's roads, and caused a larger pause – since resumed – of testing across Uber's self-driving car fleet.
Remember the Uber self-driving car that killed a woman crossing the street? The AI had no clue about jaywalkers [6]READ MORE
America's National Transportation Safety Board released [7]a report in the aftermath of the crash taking Uber to task for what it found to be poor safety measures in the cars.
"Contributing to the crash was Uber Advanced Technology Group’s inadequate safety risk assessment procedures, ineffective oversight of the vehicle operators and a lack of adequate mechanisms for addressing operators’ automation complacency," the NTSB wrote, "all consequences of the division’s inadequate safety culture."
Now, some two years after the fateful collision, Vasquez is set to go on trial. If convicted of negligent homicide, the 46-year-old faces anywhere from 12 and 44 months behind bars.
Uber, meanwhile, continues with its efforts to develop self-driving cars that it would be able to use for its dial-a-ride services and completely side-step the need for human drivers. Those efforts have only become more important for Uber as it continues to fight with governments as well as some of its own drivers over whether they they should be classified as employees or contractors under labor laws.
In California, the issue is set to come to a head in a matter of weeks as the public will vote on a measure to offer Uber, Lyft, and other gig economy app developers an [8]exemption from the state's laws on worker classification. ®
Get our [9]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.maricopacountyattorney.org/DocumentCenter/View/1724/Rafael-Vasquez-GJ-Indictment
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2018/03/19/uber_self_driving_car_fatal_crash/
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2018/06/22/uber_fatal_crash_driver_distracted_police_report/
[4] https://www.maricopacountyattorney.org/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=751
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2019/03/06/uber_death_no_charge/
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2019/11/06/uber_self_driving_car_death/
[7] https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20191119c.aspx
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/20/uber_lyft_appeal/
[9] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Prosecutors in Maricopa, Arizona, today said that following her grand jury indictment, Rafaela Vasquez will go on trial for the death of Elaine Herzberg. Vasquez, who [1]was charged [PDF] under the name Rafael, pleaded not guilty. She was released with an ankle tracker ahead of her October 27 trial.
Herzberg was crossing the street on foot in Tempe, Arizona, at around 10pm on March 18, 2018, when she was [2]hit by an Uber car under computer control. Judging from footage taken by a video camera mounted inside the Volvo XC90 SUV, Vasquez, whose job it was to watch the road and apply emergency braking for the artificially intelligent vehicle when necessary, appeared to be [3]looking down at her phone just before the crash. Herzberg, 49, died of her injuries in hospital.
"Distracted driving is an issue of great importance in our community," [4]said Allister Adel, Maricopa County attorney. "When a driver gets behind the wheel of a car, they have a responsibility to control and operate that vehicle safely and in a law-abiding manner."
While [5]no criminal charges were brought against Uber as a company, the fallout from the accident was disastrous for its robo-ride program. Aside from the poor publicity and public outcry, the death led Arizona's governor to withdraw permission for Uber to test its vehicles on the US state's roads, and caused a larger pause – since resumed – of testing across Uber's self-driving car fleet.
Remember the Uber self-driving car that killed a woman crossing the street? The AI had no clue about jaywalkers [6]READ MORE
America's National Transportation Safety Board released [7]a report in the aftermath of the crash taking Uber to task for what it found to be poor safety measures in the cars.
"Contributing to the crash was Uber Advanced Technology Group’s inadequate safety risk assessment procedures, ineffective oversight of the vehicle operators and a lack of adequate mechanisms for addressing operators’ automation complacency," the NTSB wrote, "all consequences of the division’s inadequate safety culture."
Now, some two years after the fateful collision, Vasquez is set to go on trial. If convicted of negligent homicide, the 46-year-old faces anywhere from 12 and 44 months behind bars.
Uber, meanwhile, continues with its efforts to develop self-driving cars that it would be able to use for its dial-a-ride services and completely side-step the need for human drivers. Those efforts have only become more important for Uber as it continues to fight with governments as well as some of its own drivers over whether they they should be classified as employees or contractors under labor laws.
In California, the issue is set to come to a head in a matter of weeks as the public will vote on a measure to offer Uber, Lyft, and other gig economy app developers an [8]exemption from the state's laws on worker classification. ®
Get our [9]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.maricopacountyattorney.org/DocumentCenter/View/1724/Rafael-Vasquez-GJ-Indictment
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2018/03/19/uber_self_driving_car_fatal_crash/
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2018/06/22/uber_fatal_crash_driver_distracted_police_report/
[4] https://www.maricopacountyattorney.org/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=751
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2019/03/06/uber_death_no_charge/
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2019/11/06/uber_self_driving_car_death/
[7] https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20191119c.aspx
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/20/uber_lyft_appeal/
[9] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
However
Richard 12
That "one job" is impossible, and made so by Uber.
Humans cannot maintain a high level of concentration for long periods when not actually doing anything.
On top of that, grabbing the steering and/or moving your foot onto the brake may not be physically possible within the available time.
Mostly-autonomous is probably the most dangerous stage and needs very careful human factors analysis, which Uber didn't do.
It also might have helped if Uber hadn't disabled the built-in driving aids.
cb7
It doesn't help when they keep calling it "self-driving". That makes the driver think they can leave the car to it.
If they called it driver-assist technology for example, it's clearer that the tech is there to assist the driver, not replace them.
before all the arguments kick off, this all comes down to one salient point, the 'driver' in the car was there to watch out for, and apply emergency braking as required, and WAS LOOKING AT HER PHONE - no need for long drawn out lawerley discourse here, she was NOT doing the ONE thing she was asked to do .............