[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

But regardless, 3 MPH would have made no difference here.

You dont know that without doing the math.
How long (now many seconds) had passed that the pedestrian was crossing the road before she was hit?
How many inches (or centimeters) overlap was there on the car on the point/time of impact?
If you give those 2 numbers I can calculate if 3mph less speeding would result in the pedestrian safely reaching the other side of the road because it would have taken more time for the then not speeding car to reach her/collide with her. Thats a simple math problem. But I need those 2 factual numbers. Otherwise if you dont have those 2 factual numbers, its speculation. Technically I also need the width of the road (or at least the distance travelled from the other side of the road to the point where she got hit) to calculate it, but I think I can make an estimate of that with measuring in google maps (but a real life measurement would be more accurate of course, so thats preferrabe if you can give that number too).

My point is, before you cross a road, you make an estimate how long it takes for you to cross the road and how far away the first vehicle you see is. You estimate this on how fast the vehicle is travelling, or how fast its allowed to travel in that road. For a local 35mph road that distance can be much shorter than say a 70mph highway. And for a 15mph suburban road it can be much shorter than for a 35mph road.
However when a car is speeding on that road, those distances get messed up. And you can calculate if the speeding really made a difference given you have the data/parameters above.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

You dont know that without doing the math.
How long (now many seconds) had passed that the pedestrian was crossing the road before she was hit?
How many inches (or centimeters) overlap was there on the car on the point/time of impact?
If you give those 2 numbers I can calculate if 3mph less speeding would result in the pedestrian safely reaching the other side of the road because it would have taken more time for the then not speeding car to reach her/collide with her. Thats a simple math problem. But I need those 2 factual numbers. Otherwise if you dont have those 2 factual numbers, its speculation. Technically I also need the width of the road (or at least the distance travelled from the other side of the road to the point where she got hit) to calculate it, but I think I can make an estimate of that with measuring in google maps (but a real life measurement would be more accurate of course, so thats preferrabe if you can give that number too).

Again, last posted speed sign on road prior to impact appears to be 45 MPH, less than 1,000 feet prior to impact.

In my experience, higher speed limits signs are not posted within 1,000 feet of area where speed limit drops 10 MPH.

Next, will you suggest that car was at fault for not going 45 MPH and as thus had not passed victim prior to her crossing?

[Mr Gasser]

So when they replace pedestrians with robots, its a moot point...

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

I do not know Policy.

I suspect they should be able to look at the diagnostic screens as human driver is only there for backup in autonomous mode.

Reread the statue you posted.

Then read statements from investigators and Sherrif.

The driver could not have prevented.

Human driver was backup.

Your caveman vernacular aside; this is almost becoming a ridiculous 'tree falling in the woods' debate. If there is a backup driver in place, but they pay zero attention, and take zero action to provide any backup, is there really a backup driver?

If I may go back several pages, I'll relate this back to Dieselgate again. Just because you put an emissions system in place for lab use, doesn't actually mean you can defeat the emissions system during roadway use. So... Just because you put a person in the driver's seat doesn't mean your providing the safeguard society agreed to when we authorized the testing of these systems.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

Again, last posted speed sign on road prior to impact appears to be 45 MPH, less than 1,000 feet prior to impact.

In my experience,

Was the car speeding or not?!?
Thats the question. And by how much. Surely the police know what the speed limit is on that stretch of road? From what I understand is that they stated that the car was speeding, 3mph over the limit, being 35mph according to their statement.
Or are they wrong? of have I totally misunderstood those numbers?
What we see on streetview might not be the actual current situation there. I dont know, I dont live there. Have you been on that road recently?

All I say is that if the car was speeding, by a certain amount of speed, and if we know how wide the road is (or what the lenght is between impact point and road border), and if we know how long the pedestrian was already crossing the road, and how big the overlap on the car is during the crash (measure how far the dent is from the side of the car), you can calculate if the speeding was a real factor in the crash or not. At a certain (lower) speed the car would have missed the pedestrian.
Then again, if the car was way overspeeding at a certain speed, the car also would have missed the pedestrian...

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

I have read more on this last night than most here I suspect. Not comment blogs but LOCAL news accounts from the local papers and TV stations etc.

This is probably directed to my post?
The blog looked at the technical aspect, with in depth analysis of the tech systems/sensor arrays. Local news usually doesnt describe that and certainly not it that detail I think.
He says that he primarely talks about what the car/autonomous system should or shouldnt have detected. And I dont think he's wrong in that. And the comments also give technical indepth knowledge on how the lidar works and what brand and type of sensor is used in those systems etc etc. Its a tech blog.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

Was the car speeding or not?!?
Thats the question. And by how much. Surely the police know what the speed limit is on that stretch of road?

The local Police have been absolutely clear. The vehicle was speeding slightly (at 38 mph) as that part of the road is a 35 mph zone.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

Your caveman vernacular aside; this is almost becoming a ridiculous 'tree falling in the woods' debate. If there is a backup driver in place, but they pay zero attention, and take zero action to provide any backup, is there really a backup driver?

If I may go back several pages, I'll relate this back to Dieselgate again. Just because you put an emissions system in place for lab use, doesn't actually mean you can defeat the emissions system during roadway use. So... Just because you put a person in the driver's seat doesn't mean your providing the safeguard society agreed to when we authorized the testing of these systems.

Again, you failed to read Arizona Laws on Autonomous Car Testing.

Suggest you read before continuing to make statements which are incorrect, such as you did posting I stated victims mouth was not moving (which was also incorrect).

Suggest your caveman perception of yourself always being right needs to be self examined.

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

The local Police have been absolutely clear. The vehicle was speeding slightly (at 38 mph) as that part of the road is a 35 mph zone.

You are ignoring facts, again.

45 MPH speed limit posted 1300 Feet south of Curry, which makes it about 800 Feet away from accident site.

Nothing (including Google Maps) shows a 35 MPH sign between it and accident site.

Suggest you find photo evidence of any 35 MPH speed sign.

[pz619]

This victim blaming is ridiculous. Any semi competent human would have been easily able to avoid this. The point of having robot drive around is that they are suppose to be better than their human counterparts, otherwise what's the point?

The fact of the matter is that a company with shitty business practices, ran by shitty people, elected to have half assed technology, beta (probably alpha actually) tested on public streets. It's unfortunate that some woman had to pay the price, regardless of jaywalking.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

Was the car speeding or not?!?
Thats the question. And by how much. Surely the police know what the speed limit is on that stretch of road? From what I understand is that they stated that the car was speeding, 3mph over the limit, being 35mph.
Or are they wrong?
What we see on streetview might not be the actual current situation there. I dont know, I dont live there. Have you been on that road recently?


This is probably directed to my post?
The blog looked at the technical aspect, with in depth analysation of the tech systems/sensor arrays. Local news hardly describes that and certainly not it that detail I think.
He says that he primarely talks about what the car/autonomous system should or shouldnt have detected.

Nope. Talking about accident site and local laws. Not technical failure of lidar/Radar which everyone can clearly agree on. It’s Aimed at anyone who is posting assumptions and misinformation about the accident site and Arizona Laws.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

Again, you failed to read Arizona Laws on Autonomousl Car Testing.

Suggest you read before continuing to make statements which are incorrect.

Looking at Gov Ducey's March 2018 Executive Order I see nothing that absolves liabilities from the driver. Actually I think the order reinforces my position that the driver is responsible. What information is helping form your position?

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by pz619

This victim blaming is ridiculous. Any semi competent human would have been easily able to avoid this. The point of having robot drive around is that they are suppose to be better than their human counterparts, otherwise what's the point?

Again, all Law Enforcement has disagreed with you.

What’s the point?

Really??????

I guess you like chopping wood and restocking fireplace all night?

And building a fire every time you cook or want hot water to bath, which you get from the creek.

BTW, how are you on internet without electricity in your household?

Geez.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

Looking at Gov Ducey's March 2018 Executive Order I see nothing that absolves liabilities from the driver. Actually I think the order reinforces my position that the driver is responsible. What information is helping form your position?

Sets stage for no backup driver needed.

Who you call backup driver was technically passenger after March 1st Executive Order.

Passenger cannot be charged with vehicle operation violations.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

You are ignoring facts, again.

45 MPH speed limit posted 1300 Feet south of Curry, which makes it about 800 Feet away from accident site.

Nothing (including Google Maps) shows a 35 MPH sign between it and accident site.

Suggest you find photo evidence of any 35 MPH speed sign.

Are you also going to say that to the police, that their statement about the speedlimit at the place of the accident is incorrect because you looked at google maps?
Google maps are not facts. They are pictures taken at some point in time.
They are a photographic prepresentation of a moment "back when...."
Maybe they placed a 35mph sign somewhere between the time that the google maps pictures were taken and yesterday?
To be sure you have to physically go to that road and look. Not look at google maps.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

Are you also going to say that to the police, that their statement about the speedlimit at the place of the accident is incorrect because you looked at google maps?
Google maps are not facts. They are pictures taken at some point in time.
They are a photographic prepresentation of a moment "back when...."
Maybe they placed a 35mph sign somewhere between the time that the google maps pictures were taken and yesterday?
To be sure you have to physically go to that road and look. Not look at google maps.

No, I am making statement as Local Newspaper went out and examined site on Monday in great detail.

Reported it.

And google Maps confirm.

No physical evidence to contrary.

But I’ve only posted it multiple times now (sigh)

And you do not put a 45 MPH Speed Limit Sign 800 Feet or less prior to a slower zone.

You post a reduce speed zone ahead sign.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

No, I am making statement as Local Newspaper went out and examined site on Monday in great detail.

Reported it.

And google Maps confirm.

No physical evidence to contrary.

The physical evidence to the contrary is the local police that are on record stating the part of the roadway in question is a 35 mph zone!

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

The physical evidence to the contrary is the local police that are on record stating the part of the roadway in question is a 35 mph zone!

Nope.

The physical evidence as to the true speed has been posted multiple times.

Just because someone says it, like your posting of me saying victims mouth was not moving, does not make it a correct statement on your behalf.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

Sets stage for no backup driver needed.

The funny part is how the second paragraph in your screenshot reinforces my position that a driver in place would be held responsible.

Stages being set for no driver or not, this vehicle had a driver in place. The law is clear. The driver is ultimately responsible for adhering to AZ (and US) motor vehicle laws.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

The funny part is how the second paragraph in your screenshot reinforces my position that a driver in place would be held responsible.

Stages being set for no driver or not, this vehicle had a driver in place. The driver is ultimately responsible for adhering to AZ (and US) motor vehicle laws.

You really have a comphrension issue.

Law states Company is responsible.

LEO states they would give driver citation (which they have not yet in this accident) and from statements they have passed case to DA sounds as if they are not going to charge.

Court throws out charges as that’s not the law if DA takes to court.

Of course, you missed the point that if we accept your Version as correct, LEO has decided Driver not at fault.

Case closed

You cannot have it both ways.

And human WAS NOT NEEDED IN CAR after Executive Order.

How you can twist that around is amazing.

Technically, person you call driver was only a passenger sitting behind the wheel.

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

I do not know Policy.

I suspect they should be able to look at the diagnostic screens as human driver is only there for backup in autonomous mode.

Reread the statue you posted.

Then read statements from investigators and Sherrif.

The driver could not have prevented.

There are multiple statements and they were curbed by words like "preliminarily," "appears" and "likely" and did not rule out charges could be brought (and the police have no view on civil legal liability other than criminal charges). Further, they followed up by stating they do not determine fault and that the investigation would be submitted to the attorney's office for further consideration. The investigation is not complete. That does not mean any charges will be brought or a civil suit, if there is one, will be successful by a plaintiff - it is just incomplete at this point. One of the police statements (Tempe Police Sergeant Ronald Elcock) was also factually incorrect in that it said she was struck immediately upon stepping into the lane of traffic and the video clearly indicates otherwise.

My post was in the interest of completeness. Drivers have a responsibility if they have an opportunity to avoid an accident, regardless of what the pedestrian does and that seemed to be getting lost.

[MalibuBimmer]

In 2001 I bought a Mercedes CL55 with Distronic. That early version of radar distance assisted cruise control didn't work below 25 MPH (it turned itself off) and it also didn't brake very hard. I thought it was worthless.

In 2017 I bought an AMG GT with Distronic. (I wanted a brilliant blue GT and the only one in California available in September had Distronic. I didn't really want it.) The new Distronic works in start stop traffic as long as vehicles aren't stopped for more than a few seconds. (I'm not sure of the exact time.) And it brakes a lot harder. But I still don't trust it and it doesn't ease up on the accelerator when cars well ahead are slowing down (I can see it, the radar can't sense it). And when someone cuts in front of you, or you're on a curve and the angle is bad, the Distronic works poorly.

On the other hand, as long as I pay attention its "reaction time" will be near instantaneous while mine will be the reaction time of a 72 year old man. So, is it worth driving in Distronic with my foot hovering around the brake?

I answer that questrion most of the time in the negative. But I also recognize that maybe in 15 years, if I live that long, I'm going to welcome autonomous driving. And by then it will be a hell of a lot better at driving than I am. (My Father died in January at age 100. I made him stop driving at 97.)

To the point of this thread, I suspect a human driver paying attention would have tried to brake, but reaction times being what they are, the human being wouldn't have prevented the accident. But might be considered to be at fault.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

You really have a comphrension issue.

Law states Company is responsible.

LEO states they would give driver citation (which they have not yet in this accident) and from statements they have passed case to DA sounds as if they are not going to charge.

Court throws out charges as that’s not the law if DA takes to court.

Of course, you missed the point that if we accept your Version as correct, LEO has decided Driver not at fault.

Case closed

You cannot have it both ways.

And human WAS NOT NEEDED IN CAR after Executive Order.

How you can twist that around is amazing.

Lets take little baby steps so we can find where we agree or differ...

1. A driver was in the vehicle in this case. WE AGREE ON THIS.

2. A driver may not necessarily be required with a Level 4 or 5 ADS in the future depending on case-by-case approval by the state. WE AGREE ON THIS.

3. The local police said an active driver would have failed in the same way as the ADS. WE AGREE ON THE FACT THAT THEY MADE THIS STATEMENT. However I think politics is driving this conclusion but lets put that aside for this post.

4. When a driver is in place, the driver is responsible for adhering to local and federal motor vehicle laws. Point #2 above has zero impact on this.

5. The vehicle manufacturer and/or operator (not driver) may also be held responsible whether a driver is in place or not.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

There are multiple statements and they were curbed by words like "preliminarily," "appears" and "likely" and did not rule out charges could be brought (and the police have no view on civil legal liability other than criminal charges). Further, they followed up by stating they do not determine fault and that the investigation would be submitted to the attorney's office for further consideration. The investigation is not complete. That does not mean any charges will be brought or a civil suit, if there is one, will be successful by a plaintiff - it is just incomplete at this point. One of the police statements (Tempe Police Sergeant Ronald Elcock) was also factually incorrect in that it said she was struck immediately upon stepping into the lane of traffic and the video clearly indicates otherwise.

My post was in the interest of completeness. Drivers have a responsibility if they have an opportunity to avoid an accident, regardless of what the pedestrian does and that seemed to be getting lost.

Thank you for pointing that out. LEO statements (35MPH statement) was also incorrect. LEO can write citation that are often thrown out as incorrect in court.

Local Investigation has been turned over to DA office. As they are lawyers, they know law and recent rulings better than LEO.

LEO isn’t filing charges. DA might...or probably will not based on the facts and current laws in Arizona.