Non-driving advocates have pointed out that many investigations of car crashes with pedestrians and cyclists tend to blame the pedestrian/cyclist by reflex and generally refuse to search for exculpatory evidence.

Based on the layout of the presumed crash site (namely, the median had a paved section that would effectively make this an unmarked crosswalk), and based on the fact that the damage being all on the passenger's side (which is to say, the pedestrian would have had to have crossed most of the lane before being struck), I would expect that there is a rather lot that could have been done on the driver's side (whether human or autonomous) to avoid the crash.

Your passenger's side comment didn’t make sense to me until I read the Forbes article linked above:

> Herzberg is said to have abruptly walked from a center median into a lane with traffic

So that explains that. However, contrary to the thrust of your argument, the experience of the sober driver, who was ready to intervene if needed, is hard to dismiss:

> “The driver said it was like a flash, the person walked out in front of them,” Moir said. “His first alert to the collision was the sound of the collision.”

And also:

> “It’s very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode [autonomous or human-driven] based on how she came from the shadows right into the roadway,” Moir told the paper, adding that the incident occurred roughly 100 yards from a crosswalk. “It is dangerous to cross roadways in the evening hour when well-illuminated managed crosswalks are available,” she said.

Yes, I see. So she walked maybe 2 meters into the lane before being hit. At a slow walk (1 meter/second) that's 2 seconds. At 17 meters/second, that's 34 meters. And it's about twice nominal disengagement time. So yes, it's iffy.

And at a moderate sprint, like most adults do when they try to cross a roadway with vehicular traffic, that is 4-5 m/s, giving the vehicle 0.4 - 0.5 seconds to stop. 40 MPH ~ 18 m/s that gives the vehicle 7-9 meters to stop.

No human could brake that well, and simply jamming the brakes would engage the ABS leading to a longer stopping distance. Not to mention the human reaction time of 0.5 - 0.75 seconds would have prevented most people from even lifting the foot off the accelerator pedal before the collision, even if they were perfectly focused on driving.

> simply jamming the brakes would engage the ABS leading to a longer stopping distance

I was taught that the entire point of ABS is so that you can just jam the brake and have the shortest stopping time instead of modulating it yourself to avoid skidding. Do you have any source to the contrary?

ABS is intended to enable steering by increasing static road friction. It is not intended to decrease stopping distance, and in many cases increases stopping distance by keeping the negative G's away from the hard limit in anticipation of lateral G's due to steering.

Older dumb ABS systems would simply "pump the pedal" for the driver, and would increase stopping distance in almost all conditions, especially single-channel systems. Newer systems determine breaking performance via the conventional ABS sensors and additionally accelerometers. These systems will back off N G's, then increase the G's bisecting the known-locked and known-unlocked condition, trying to find the optimum. These systems _will_ stop the car in the minimum distance possible, but very few cars use it.

I was taught the point of ABS was to keep control over steering while stepping on the brakes instead of skidding out of control into god knows what/who

Wikipedia backs me up but adds that it also decreases stopping distance on dry and slippery surfaces, while significantly increasing stopping distances in snow and gravel. I’m from a country with a lot of snow so that makes sense.

That's correct. The ABS basically takes away the brake pressure as soon as the wheels block. On most surfaces this will shorten your stopping distance versus a human blocking the tires. It is never the optimal stopping distance though.

In terms of split second reactions, it's pretty much optimal still to just jam the brakes if you have ABS. It's much better than braking too little, which is what most non-ABS drivers would have done.

When you block the wheels in loose snow or gravel, it piles up in front of the tire and provides a fair amount of friction. This is usually the fastest way to stop, and one of the reasons that gravel pits along corners in motor racing are so effective.

That said, the point of ABS is in the rare event that you have to brake full power, the system automatically help you do it at a near optimal (slightly skidding) without additional input, and you remain full steering ability.

If you don't have ABS you'd need to train that emergency stop ability on a daily basis to even come close.

> Wikipedia backs me up but adds that it also decreases stopping distance on dry and slippery surfaces,

Many cars, such as my POS Ford Focus, use a single-channel ABS system. These systems will oscillate all four brakes even if only one is locked. Combined with the rear-wheel drum brakes, the ABS considerably increased stopping distances on dry road.

From my experience of walking my bicycle, you are slower than usual when doing so, and it's pretty difficult to abruptly change direction in that situation. I would be curious to know what is the FOV of the camera that recorded her.

Yes, I also assumed that. Back when I rode a lot, I don't recall sprinting across roadways with my bike. Also, from the photo, she had a heavy bike, with a front basket. And yes, they ought to release the car's video.

I don't think we have grounds to just assume it was a slow walk.

er... LIDAR needs ambient light now? Also if you look on Google Street View, the pedestrian entered the road from a median crossing that you can see straight down the middle of from the road hundreds of feet away. I bet they don't release the footage from the car though ;)

Sensor Fusion typically merges LiDAR with stereoscopic camera feeds, the latter requiring ambient light.

Isn't that an overly broad use of the term? I mean, if someone steps in front of a moving vehicle, from between parked vehicles, the driver may have only a few msec to react. Whose fault is it then?

Maybe it's society's fault, for building open-access roadways where vehicles exceed a few km/h.

I think you’re right about the street design being the main cause in this case. A street with people on it should be designed so that drivers naturally drive at slow, safe speeds. The intersection in question is designed for high speed. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/2/2/forgiving-desig...

I don't remember reading about parked vehicles. Accident location seems to be too narrow to park any vehicles.

As others have said in the comments, whole point of having technology is defeated if it performs worse than humans. Assuming vehicles were parked, a sane human driver will evaluate the possibility of someone coming out from between them suddenly and will not drive @40 Miles an hour speed.

>a sane human driver will evaluate the possibility of someone coming out from between them suddenly and will not drive @40 Miles an hour speed.

If that's the case most drivers on the road are very far from "sane drivers." I've been illegally passed, on narrow residential streets, many times, because I was going a speed that took into account the fact someone may jump out between parked cars.

Do you want AI to simulate insanity?