This article was nominated for deletion on 20 March 2018. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 6 April 2018, it was proposed that this article be moved from Elaine Herzberg to Death of Elaine Herzberg. The result of the discussion was move. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ywqz228.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 19:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
https://www.streetinsider.com/dr/news.php?id=13967142 Mulp ( talk) 09:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved: Joining consensus, only concern was the unity amoung other articles, surely not a WP:COI as bar mine (now changed), all responses are in support — IVORK Discuss 22:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Elaine Herzberg → Death of Elaine Herzberg – Article is about the death and followup, not a full biography. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Congratulations on getting the article name changed. Now the only slight issue is that the title is not displayed in boldface at the beginning of the lead section, so the first sentence will need to be rewritten. Something like:
The death of Elaine Herzberg (August 2, 1968 – March 18, 2018) was the first known case of a pedestrian being killed by an autonomous vehicle, following a collision that occurred at about 10 p.m. MST (UTC-7) on March 18, 2018.
Also note that I have already changed the names of the Henry H. Bliss and Bridget Driscoll articles (using Twinkle) because it didn't need a formal Request for Move discussion to take place, it just went ahead and changed the names without question. Not sure why. This can always be undone easily enough if anyone objects. The lead sections of these articles will need to be altered as well. Rodney Baggins ( talk) 06:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
What do you think of renaming the article to something like:
? The person isn't notable but the incident is. The title should reflect this. Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 15:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
when there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.. - The Gnome ( talk) 07:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I've found EH's obituary and have added some more facts about her in the infobox using the obituary as source. Note that she was born in Phoenix, not Mesa. I do hope no-one's going to tell me an obituary can't be used as a reliable primary source... It seems to me that even though EH is only notable for being the first person killed by a self-driving car, it's only right that we provide information about her for the reader's information/interest.
I've noticed that, after the lead, the article launches rather abruptly straight into the investigation section, and is lacking some sort of intro/summary/background. I would propose that we add a "Profile of the victim" section, along the lines of:
Elaine Herzberg was born Elaine Marie Wood in Phoenix, Arizona on August 2, 1968, to parents Danny Wood and Sharon Daly. She was raised in Apache Junction, Arizona, and graduated from Apache Junction High School in 1985. She was widowed by her first husband Mike Herzberg; her second husband was Rolf Erich Ziemann. She had two children, son Cody and daughter Christine, and three grandchildren called Charlie, Adrian, and Madelyn.
I know this information is already carried in the infobox, so maybe doesn't need repeating, but I'm wondering if it might be better presenting it in the body of the article and keep the infobox down to a minimum.
Using the same source, we're also in a position to tell the reader that Herzberg's funeral service and burial took place on Saturday, April 21, 2018 at Resthaven/Carr-Tenney Memorial Gardens in Phoenix. Rodney Baggins ( talk) 09:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I think some of the background information contained in the Cause investigation section, including some of the Environment subsection, could be pulled out into a separate section, as the article is lacking a solid "this is what happened" section somewhere near the top. We have concentrated too much on the investigation and not what happened in the first place.
I'm talking in particular about these details:
Would anyone mind if I created a new section called "Accident" or "Incident" or "Summary" explaining what happened and using these basic facts? It would come directly after the "Profile of the victim" section mentioned in Talk section above. Obviously some of it would be mentioned again in the Investigation section, but it would be approached there from a slightly different angle using subsequent analysis. For example, this bit would remain under Environment: "The Marquee Theatre and Tempe Town Lake are west of Mill Avenue, and pedestrians commonly cross mid-street without detouring north to the crosswalk at Curry.[14] According to reporting by the Phoenix New Times, Mill Avenue contains what appears to be a brick-lined path in the median between the northbound and southbound lanes.[14] However, posted signs prohibit pedestrians from using it, as it is strictly ornamental.[19]" Rodney Baggins ( talk) 09:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I have added a sentence summarizing a report at arstechnica.com [1] establishing the the street lighting was ample despite the dark appearance of the Uber video, and an explanation that the X-shaped brick area between the two roadways of Mill Avenue is not a crosswalk but a crossover allowing traffic to shift between the two Mill Avenue bridges. I could use an additional citation for that: my information is in an e-mail from Reed Kempton, who works for the Maricopa County Council of Governments The detailed explanation might go into the article about the mill Avenue bridges.. Jsallen1 ( talk) 04:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome. I have definitive information about the purpose of the X-shaped brick area. The information was originally shared on a closed e-mail list. I asked and was given permission to cite it but the citation is in a post on my blog, and the latest I know is that Wikipedia doesn't accept blog posts as references. How do we get past that issue? Here is a reference to the post, for purposes of discussion.Allen, John (March 23, 2018). "Description and history of the location of the Tempe crash". john-s-allen.com. Retrieved 18 April 2019. comment added by Jsallen1 ( talk • contribs) 13:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I've been looking at a Daily Mail article, which I'm pretty sure cannot be used as a reliable primary source – please correct me if I'm wrong! If anyone wants to have a look, it's:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5578793/Family-woman-killed-Ubers-driverless-car-say-afford-bury-her.html
This contains some "dubious personal information" about EH which is probably not worth mentioning (as I can't find it mentioned anywhere other than in the tabloid press):
More importantly, the article also states that the Uber car was piloted by convicted felon Rafaela Vasquez, 44. Is there any particular reason why Ms. Vasquez hasn't been mentioned in our article? I can't see any reason why anyone would actually make this bit up! If anyone can find a respectable source for this, we should at lease add her name in somewhere. Rodney Baggins ( talk) 10:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Yesterday I edited the article, with the comment:
I took out some recent anonymously added figures about how long it takes to stop. They were based on tables for TOTAL stopping distance, including reaction time, which doesn't apply here. Also, I don't believe that driving under the speed limit was "exceeding its assumed clear distance ahead"!
Now an anonymous editor 199.116.168.104 has reverted my edit saying, "The tables apply because a human was legally required as backup; the accident report stated that the car was driving too fast; darkness limited visibility; definition of assured clear distance rule."
What I took out said:
She was first detected 6 seconds (352 feet at 40 mph) before impact; a vehicle traveling 40 mph (64 km/h) can stop within 164 feet (50 m). [2] Notwithstanding, because the machine needed to be 1.3 seconds (76 feet) away prior to discerning that emergency braking was required, it was exceeding its assured clear distance ahead, and hence driving too fast for the conditions. A reaction distance of 76 feet itself would imply a safe speed under 25 mph. [2]
I claim that the figures are wrong because they are based on reaction time (see the article Braking distance for how these distances are calculated). The computer could have stopped the car in 77 feet starting from 40 mph, not 164 ft, from the moment it decides that the car should stop. This comes from:
A similar calculation shows that a car traveling at 25 mph can stop in 30 feet if reaction time is not included, not 76 feet. I don't understand the phrase "the machine needed to be 1.3 seconds away prior to discerning that emergency braking was required". But surely it was not exceeding its Assured Clear Distance Ahead, because it could have stopped in 77 feet, and it was 352 feet away when it detected Elaine! I left a sentence saying that the police report said the car was going too fast for the conditions, but frankly I don't see why that would be true. I can't read the reference because I get a message "Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. Bla bla bla." But as the Code of Virginia tables say, even a human could stop the car in 164 feet, so what's wrong with going 40 mph? That was 5 mph under the allowed speed.
What do others think about what I removed?
Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 07:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
The autonomous reaction to perceived obstacles was disabled so human reaction time WAS a factor here. The woman wasn't seen because the backup driver was watching Hulu, not because of insufficient sight lines for the speed. The area was well lit. The car was not speeding. -- В²C ☎ 17:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
References
an average baseline for motor vehicle stopping distances...for a vehicle in good condition and...on a level, dry stretch of highway, free from loose material.
The cars have reacted more slowly than human drivers and struggled to pass so-called track validation tests...Dara Khosrowshahi, the chief executive, acknowledged errors in Uber's earlier driverless car efforts. "We did screw up," he said in comments provided by Uber...as recently as a few weeks ago, the company's autonomous vehicle unit, Uber Advanced Technologies Group, or A.T.G., was still experiencing track testing "failures" on different versions of its software, according internal company emails. To match the reaction time of a human driver at 25 m.p.h., the cars needed to drive "20% slower than a human," Brandon Basso, a director at A.T.G., said in a Nov. 1 email. Even at slower speeds, the cars were passing only 82 percent of track tests, according to company documents...a test in early November ran Uber's vehicles through more than 70 categories at 25 m.p.h., they failed in 10 of them, including being slow to recognize another car that didn't yield.
The passenger vehicle occupant fatality rate at nighttime is about three times higher than the daytime rate. ...The data shows a higher percentage of passenger vehicle occupants killed in speeding-related crashes at nighttime.
It is negligence as a matter of law to drive a motor vehicle at such a rate of speed that it cannot be stopped in time to avoid an obstruction discernible within the driver's length of vision ahead of him. This rule is known generally as the `assured clear distance ahead' rule * * * In application, the rule constantly changes as the motorist proceeds, and is measured at any moment by the distance between the motorist's vehicle and the limit of his vision ahead, or by the distance between the vehicle and any intermediate discernible static or forward-moving object in the street or highway ahead constituting an obstruction in his path. Such rule requires a motorist in the exercise of due care at all times to see, or to know from having seen, that the road is clear or apparently clear and safe for travel, a sufficient distance ahead to make it apparently safe to advance at the speed employed.
Extreme caution in the operation of a commercial motor vehicle shall be exercised when hazardous conditions, such as those caused by snow, ice, sleet, fog, mist, rain, dust, or smoke, adversely affect visibility or traction. Speed shall be reduced when such conditions exist. If conditions become sufficiently dangerous, the operation of the commercial motor vehicle shall be discontinued and shall not be resumed until the commercial motor vehicle can be safely operated. Whenever compliance with the foregoing provisions of this rule increases hazard to passengers, the commercial motor vehicle may be operated to the nearest point at which the safety of passengers is assured.
[pg 2-15] 2.6.4 – Speed and Distance Ahead: You should always be able to stop within the distance you can see ahead. Fog, rain, or other conditions may require that you slowdown to be able to stop in the distance you can see. ... [pg 2-19] 2.8.3 – Drivers Who Are Hazards: Vehicles may be partly hidden by blind intersections or alleys. If you only can see the rear or front end of a vehicle but not the driver, then he or she can't see you. Be alert because he/she may back out or enter into your lane. Always be prepared to stop. ... [pg 2-26] 2.11.4 – Vehicle Factors: Headlights. At night your headlights will usually be the main source of light for you to see by and for others to see you. You can't see nearly as much with your headlights as you see in the daytime. With low beams you can see ahead about 250 feet and with high beams about 350-500 feet. You must adjust your speed to keep your stopping distance within your sight distance. This means going slowly enough to be able to stop within the range of your headlights. ... [pg 13-1] 13.1.2 – Intersections As you approach an intersection: Check traffic thoroughly in all directions. Decelerate gently. Brake smoothly and, if necessary, change gears. If necessary, come to a complete stop (no coasting) behind any stop signs, signals, sidewalks, or stop lines maintaining a safe gap behind any vehicle in front of you. Your vehicle must not roll forward or backward. When driving through an intersection: Check traffic thoroughly in all directions. Decelerate and yield to any pedestrians and traffic in the intersection. Do not change lanes while proceeding through the intersection. Keep your hands on the wheel.
A video shot from the vehicle's dashboard camera showed the safety driver looking down, away from the road. It also appeared that the driver's hands were not hovering above the steering wheel, which is what drivers are instructed to do so they can quickly retake control of the car. ... Uber moved from two employees in every car to one. The paired employees had been splitting duties — one ready to take over if the autonomous system failed, and another to keep an eye on what the computers were detecting. The second person was responsible for keeping track of system performance as well as labeling data on a laptop computer. Mr. Kallman, the Uber spokesman, said the second person was in the car for purely data related tasks, not safety. ... When Uber moved to a single operator, some employees expressed safety concerns to managers, according to the two people familiar with Uber's operations.
I am attempting to modify the paragraph so that it will make sense.
Eric Kvaalen (
talk) 15:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. But I have created the redirect. Andrewa ( talk) 07:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Death of Elaine Herzberg →
Uber developmental self-driving car pedestrian death – Per
WP:TITLE: "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources."
In the list of sources in the article, roughly 90% are about uber and or driverless and 5% are about the victim. A note about using "developmental" in the title. I think it is important to note this wasn't a driverless car. It was a driverless car being developed. Had known limitations and required a driver to oversee it. We have cars now that allow you to take hands off the steering wheel, but few would call them driverless. Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 18:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
As the article notes, "emergency braking maneuvers are not enabled while the vehicle is under computer control, to reduce the potential for erratic vehicle behavior". In other words, the entire obstacle avoidance subsystem had been disabled by Uber because it was so bad: reacting to too many "false positives". For noticing and avoiding obstacles, they relied 100% on the human "backup" driver. How does such a car even qualify as "autonomous" or "self-driving"? I think it's misleading to declare this death to be caused by a self-driving car, though unfortunately that's how it has been covered in many reliable sources, so we're kind of stuck. -- В²C ☎ 17:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
References
The standards of the law are standards of general application. The law takes no account of the infinite varieties of temperament, intellect, and education which make the internal character of a given act so different in different men. ... [Page 122] the averment that the defendant has been guilty of negligence ... that his alleged conduct does not come up to the legal standard. ... the question whether the court or the jury ought to judge of the defendant's conduct is wholly unaffected by the accident, ... it is entirely possible to give a series of hypothetical instructions adapted to every state of facts which it is open to the jury to find. ... the court may still take their opinion as to the standard. ... [page 123] ...supposing a state of facts often repeated in practice, is it to be imagined that the court is to go on leaving the standard to the jury forever? ... if the jury is, on the whole, as fair a tribunal as it is represented to be, the lesson which can be got from that source will be learned.... the court will find ... the conduct complained of usually is or is not blameworthy, ... or it will find the jury oscillating to and fro, and will see the necessity of making up its mind for itself. There is no reason why any other such question should not be settled, as well as that of liability for stairs with smooth strips of brass upon their edges.
The cars have reacted more slowly than human drivers and struggled to pass so-called track validation tests...Dara Khosrowshahi, the chief executive, acknowledged errors in Uber's earlier driverless car efforts. "We did screw up," he said in comments provided by Uber...as recently as a few weeks ago, the company's autonomous vehicle unit, Uber Advanced Technologies Group, or A.T.G., was still experiencing track testing "failures" on different versions of its software, according internal company emails. To match the reaction time of a human driver at 25 m.p.h., the cars needed to drive "20% slower than a human," Brandon Basso, a director at A.T.G., said in a Nov. 1 email. Even at slower speeds, the cars were passing only 82 percent of track tests, according to company documents...a test in early November ran Uber's vehicles through more than 70 categories at 25 m.p.h., they failed in 10 of them, including being slow to recognize another car that didn't yield.
A video shot from the vehicle's dashboard camera showed the safety driver looking down, away from the road. It also appeared that the driver's hands were not hovering above the steering wheel, which is what drivers are instructed to do so they can quickly retake control of the car. ... Uber moved from two employees in every car to one. The paired employees had been splitting duties — one ready to take over if the autonomous system failed, and another to keep an eye on what the computers were detecting. The second person was responsible for keeping track of system performance as well as labeling data on a laptop computer. Mr. Kallman, the Uber spokesman, said the second person was in the car for purely data related tasks, not safety. ... When Uber moved to a single operator, some employees expressed safety concerns to managers, according to the two people familiar with Uber's operations.
When, in the near future, a driverless car gets into an accident with another driverless car, it's going to be difficult to establish who is at fault. Is it the "driver," the car company, or even the programmer?..."You're going to get a whole host of new defendants," Kevin Dean, an attorney suing General Motors over its faulty ignition switches, told Bloomberg. "Computer programmers, computer companies, designers of algorithms, Google, mapping companies, even states...." Right now, the person with primary responsibility for a car accident is the car owner. But when a robot is driving the car, that is likely going to be hard for car owners to stomach.
[pg 2-15] 2.6.4 – Speed and Distance Ahead: You should always be able to stop within the distance you can see ahead. Fog, rain, or other conditions may require that you slowdown to be able to stop in the distance you can see. ... [pg 2-19] 2.8.3 – Drivers Who Are Hazards: Vehicles may be partly hidden by blind intersections or alleys. If you only can see the rear or front end of a vehicle but not the driver, then he or she can't see you. Be alert because he/she may back out or enter into your lane. Always be prepared to stop. ... [pg 2-26] 2.11.4 – Vehicle Factors: Headlights. At night your headlights will usually be the main source of light for you to see by and for others to see you. You can't see nearly as much with your headlights as you see in the daytime. With low beams you can see ahead about 250 feet and with high beams about 350-500 feet. You must adjust your speed to keep your stopping distance within your sight distance. This means going slowly enough to be able to stop within the range of your headlights. ... [pg 13-1] 13.1.2 – Intersections As you approach an intersection: Check traffic thoroughly in all directions. Decelerate gently. Brake smoothly and, if necessary, change gears. If necessary, come to a complete stop (no coasting) behind any stop signs, signals, sidewalks, or stop lines maintaining a safe gap behind any vehicle in front of you. Your vehicle must not roll forward or backward. When driving through an intersection: Check traffic thoroughly in all directions. Decelerate and yield to any pedestrians and traffic in the intersection. Do not change lanes while proceeding through the intersection. Keep your hands on the wheel.
Consensus is convincingly against renaming this article. While all respondents, to this request, have acted in good faith, the request is hereby closed without prejudice. Nevertheless, I strongly suggest that editors accept this outcome and voluntarily refrain from initiating further proposals to rename this article in the near term. ( non-admin closure) by -- John Cline ( talk) 09:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Request for article name proposals that meet WP:TITLE: "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." and is agreeable to the editors. Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 00:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Previously it was proposed to rename article to something like "uber death" here and here. The first discussion was an informal request for thoughts where the second one was a formal move request. The move request name was opposed as too complex. I'm unable to come up with a sleek name and hoping someone will come up with a name that is agreeable to the editors while meeting guidelines in wp:title. Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 00:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
when there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.. - The Gnome ( talk) 14:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm hatting this massive
WP:SOAPBOX post by a doubtlessly well-intentioned IP editor who nevertheless has some confusion as to the nature of our policies on this topic and whether this is the place to discuss them in such broad strokes. IP, please understand that while you may view neutrality as a questionable or infeasible objective as a philosophical matter, it is nevertheless a
pillar policy of this project and editors are expected to apply the guidelines within that policy to all content and editorial determinations. If you wish to debate this rather central precept of this project, there are spaces to do it in (
Wikipedia talk:NPOV being the primary one, though I think you will need to refine your objectives a little more before engaging there will be productive), but this is not such a space. The Oklahoma City bombing, assassination of Abraham Lincoln, Sharia law, relativistic physics, Exxon Valdez oil spill, statutes of limitation for homicide crimes, perpetual motion machines, and the ultimate cause of the death of George Carlin are all topics which can be discussed on their respective articles, if you feel there are POV issues to be discussed there. But this space is meant to discuss the content of this article and how to comport it with our polices as they do in fact exist,
WP:NOTAFORUM for an epistemological discussion about the fundamental limitations of human perspective or the impossibility of ever being truly "neutral", nor, for that matter, to discus causation as a legal issue.
I've left your last paragraph out of the collapse box because, although it involves a lot of WP:original research and it is doubtful your argument will be applied for that reason, it is at least on point to current discussion and the content of this article. For more information on how to approach discussion on talk pages, please see WP:TPG and WP:WWIN. Snow let's rap 02:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
References
Level 3 seems like a natural evolution of the tech you find in Tesla's Autopilot, which demands vigilance even if not everybody obeys. More work for the robot, less for the human. But it's a Herculean challenge for engineers and designers. "Having a human there to resume control is very difficult," says Bryan Reimer, an MIT researcher who studies driving behavior. Once relieved of the burden of constantly paying attention, people are quick to lose focus, and getting them back on task is difficult....Simply put, solving this problem is almost as difficult as figuring out how to make cars drive themselves. That's why Google—whose autonomous effort is now called Waymo—almost immediately abandoned any thought of building anything but a fully autonomous car.
AZC-180621
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).fatality
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Dara Khosrowshahi, the chief executive, acknowledged errors in Uber's earlier driverless car efforts. "We did screw up," he said in comments provided by Uber
i did ctrl + find for "apology" and could not find it. given Uber essentially murdered someone, was there an apology? 149.142.244.47 ( talk) 01:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I would dispute that a self-driving vehicle is classified as an "industrial robot". Firstly, the phrase is not found in this article. Category:Deaths caused by industrial robots cannot currently be justified by WP:CATV. A self-driving vehicle is a consumer robot, not an industrial one. An industrial robot works in a steel mill or auto assembly line, in an industrial context. A self-driving vehicle, out on the roads, serves the consumer and the vehicle driver or a cab customer in a commercial context. I would welcome WP:RS to shed light on this question. Elizium23 ( talk) 06:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
"According to Tempe police the car was traveling in a 35 mph (56 km/h) zone, but this is contradicted by a posted speed limit of 45 mph (72 km/h).[22]" This sentence, though somewhat clarified in the following material, really does not make sense. How is a speed limit (especially one above the alleged speed) a contradiction to a speed fact? I can go 10 mph on a street with a speed limit of 25 mph, and there is absolutely no contradiction. Kdammers ( talk) 20:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
The vehicle was going about 40 miles an hour on a street with a 45-mile-an-hour speed limit when it struck Ms. Herzberg, 49, who was walking her bicycle across the street, according to the Tempe police.That sentence in the article looks very mangled. In fact, wrong. Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 20 March 2018. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 6 April 2018, it was proposed that this article be moved from Elaine Herzberg to Death of Elaine Herzberg. The result of the discussion was move. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ywqz228.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 19:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
https://www.streetinsider.com/dr/news.php?id=13967142 Mulp ( talk) 09:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved: Joining consensus, only concern was the unity amoung other articles, surely not a WP:COI as bar mine (now changed), all responses are in support — IVORK Discuss 22:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Elaine Herzberg → Death of Elaine Herzberg – Article is about the death and followup, not a full biography. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Congratulations on getting the article name changed. Now the only slight issue is that the title is not displayed in boldface at the beginning of the lead section, so the first sentence will need to be rewritten. Something like:
The death of Elaine Herzberg (August 2, 1968 – March 18, 2018) was the first known case of a pedestrian being killed by an autonomous vehicle, following a collision that occurred at about 10 p.m. MST (UTC-7) on March 18, 2018.
Also note that I have already changed the names of the Henry H. Bliss and Bridget Driscoll articles (using Twinkle) because it didn't need a formal Request for Move discussion to take place, it just went ahead and changed the names without question. Not sure why. This can always be undone easily enough if anyone objects. The lead sections of these articles will need to be altered as well. Rodney Baggins ( talk) 06:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
What do you think of renaming the article to something like:
? The person isn't notable but the incident is. The title should reflect this. Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 15:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
when there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.. - The Gnome ( talk) 07:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I've found EH's obituary and have added some more facts about her in the infobox using the obituary as source. Note that she was born in Phoenix, not Mesa. I do hope no-one's going to tell me an obituary can't be used as a reliable primary source... It seems to me that even though EH is only notable for being the first person killed by a self-driving car, it's only right that we provide information about her for the reader's information/interest.
I've noticed that, after the lead, the article launches rather abruptly straight into the investigation section, and is lacking some sort of intro/summary/background. I would propose that we add a "Profile of the victim" section, along the lines of:
Elaine Herzberg was born Elaine Marie Wood in Phoenix, Arizona on August 2, 1968, to parents Danny Wood and Sharon Daly. She was raised in Apache Junction, Arizona, and graduated from Apache Junction High School in 1985. She was widowed by her first husband Mike Herzberg; her second husband was Rolf Erich Ziemann. She had two children, son Cody and daughter Christine, and three grandchildren called Charlie, Adrian, and Madelyn.
I know this information is already carried in the infobox, so maybe doesn't need repeating, but I'm wondering if it might be better presenting it in the body of the article and keep the infobox down to a minimum.
Using the same source, we're also in a position to tell the reader that Herzberg's funeral service and burial took place on Saturday, April 21, 2018 at Resthaven/Carr-Tenney Memorial Gardens in Phoenix. Rodney Baggins ( talk) 09:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I think some of the background information contained in the Cause investigation section, including some of the Environment subsection, could be pulled out into a separate section, as the article is lacking a solid "this is what happened" section somewhere near the top. We have concentrated too much on the investigation and not what happened in the first place.
I'm talking in particular about these details:
Would anyone mind if I created a new section called "Accident" or "Incident" or "Summary" explaining what happened and using these basic facts? It would come directly after the "Profile of the victim" section mentioned in Talk section above. Obviously some of it would be mentioned again in the Investigation section, but it would be approached there from a slightly different angle using subsequent analysis. For example, this bit would remain under Environment: "The Marquee Theatre and Tempe Town Lake are west of Mill Avenue, and pedestrians commonly cross mid-street without detouring north to the crosswalk at Curry.[14] According to reporting by the Phoenix New Times, Mill Avenue contains what appears to be a brick-lined path in the median between the northbound and southbound lanes.[14] However, posted signs prohibit pedestrians from using it, as it is strictly ornamental.[19]" Rodney Baggins ( talk) 09:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I have added a sentence summarizing a report at arstechnica.com [1] establishing the the street lighting was ample despite the dark appearance of the Uber video, and an explanation that the X-shaped brick area between the two roadways of Mill Avenue is not a crosswalk but a crossover allowing traffic to shift between the two Mill Avenue bridges. I could use an additional citation for that: my information is in an e-mail from Reed Kempton, who works for the Maricopa County Council of Governments The detailed explanation might go into the article about the mill Avenue bridges.. Jsallen1 ( talk) 04:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome. I have definitive information about the purpose of the X-shaped brick area. The information was originally shared on a closed e-mail list. I asked and was given permission to cite it but the citation is in a post on my blog, and the latest I know is that Wikipedia doesn't accept blog posts as references. How do we get past that issue? Here is a reference to the post, for purposes of discussion.Allen, John (March 23, 2018). "Description and history of the location of the Tempe crash". john-s-allen.com. Retrieved 18 April 2019. comment added by Jsallen1 ( talk • contribs) 13:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I've been looking at a Daily Mail article, which I'm pretty sure cannot be used as a reliable primary source – please correct me if I'm wrong! If anyone wants to have a look, it's:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5578793/Family-woman-killed-Ubers-driverless-car-say-afford-bury-her.html
This contains some "dubious personal information" about EH which is probably not worth mentioning (as I can't find it mentioned anywhere other than in the tabloid press):
More importantly, the article also states that the Uber car was piloted by convicted felon Rafaela Vasquez, 44. Is there any particular reason why Ms. Vasquez hasn't been mentioned in our article? I can't see any reason why anyone would actually make this bit up! If anyone can find a respectable source for this, we should at lease add her name in somewhere. Rodney Baggins ( talk) 10:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Yesterday I edited the article, with the comment:
I took out some recent anonymously added figures about how long it takes to stop. They were based on tables for TOTAL stopping distance, including reaction time, which doesn't apply here. Also, I don't believe that driving under the speed limit was "exceeding its assumed clear distance ahead"!
Now an anonymous editor 199.116.168.104 has reverted my edit saying, "The tables apply because a human was legally required as backup; the accident report stated that the car was driving too fast; darkness limited visibility; definition of assured clear distance rule."
What I took out said:
She was first detected 6 seconds (352 feet at 40 mph) before impact; a vehicle traveling 40 mph (64 km/h) can stop within 164 feet (50 m). [2] Notwithstanding, because the machine needed to be 1.3 seconds (76 feet) away prior to discerning that emergency braking was required, it was exceeding its assured clear distance ahead, and hence driving too fast for the conditions. A reaction distance of 76 feet itself would imply a safe speed under 25 mph. [2]
I claim that the figures are wrong because they are based on reaction time (see the article Braking distance for how these distances are calculated). The computer could have stopped the car in 77 feet starting from 40 mph, not 164 ft, from the moment it decides that the car should stop. This comes from:
A similar calculation shows that a car traveling at 25 mph can stop in 30 feet if reaction time is not included, not 76 feet. I don't understand the phrase "the machine needed to be 1.3 seconds away prior to discerning that emergency braking was required". But surely it was not exceeding its Assured Clear Distance Ahead, because it could have stopped in 77 feet, and it was 352 feet away when it detected Elaine! I left a sentence saying that the police report said the car was going too fast for the conditions, but frankly I don't see why that would be true. I can't read the reference because I get a message "Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. Bla bla bla." But as the Code of Virginia tables say, even a human could stop the car in 164 feet, so what's wrong with going 40 mph? That was 5 mph under the allowed speed.
What do others think about what I removed?
Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 07:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
The autonomous reaction to perceived obstacles was disabled so human reaction time WAS a factor here. The woman wasn't seen because the backup driver was watching Hulu, not because of insufficient sight lines for the speed. The area was well lit. The car was not speeding. -- В²C ☎ 17:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
References
an average baseline for motor vehicle stopping distances...for a vehicle in good condition and...on a level, dry stretch of highway, free from loose material.
The cars have reacted more slowly than human drivers and struggled to pass so-called track validation tests...Dara Khosrowshahi, the chief executive, acknowledged errors in Uber's earlier driverless car efforts. "We did screw up," he said in comments provided by Uber...as recently as a few weeks ago, the company's autonomous vehicle unit, Uber Advanced Technologies Group, or A.T.G., was still experiencing track testing "failures" on different versions of its software, according internal company emails. To match the reaction time of a human driver at 25 m.p.h., the cars needed to drive "20% slower than a human," Brandon Basso, a director at A.T.G., said in a Nov. 1 email. Even at slower speeds, the cars were passing only 82 percent of track tests, according to company documents...a test in early November ran Uber's vehicles through more than 70 categories at 25 m.p.h., they failed in 10 of them, including being slow to recognize another car that didn't yield.
The passenger vehicle occupant fatality rate at nighttime is about three times higher than the daytime rate. ...The data shows a higher percentage of passenger vehicle occupants killed in speeding-related crashes at nighttime.
It is negligence as a matter of law to drive a motor vehicle at such a rate of speed that it cannot be stopped in time to avoid an obstruction discernible within the driver's length of vision ahead of him. This rule is known generally as the `assured clear distance ahead' rule * * * In application, the rule constantly changes as the motorist proceeds, and is measured at any moment by the distance between the motorist's vehicle and the limit of his vision ahead, or by the distance between the vehicle and any intermediate discernible static or forward-moving object in the street or highway ahead constituting an obstruction in his path. Such rule requires a motorist in the exercise of due care at all times to see, or to know from having seen, that the road is clear or apparently clear and safe for travel, a sufficient distance ahead to make it apparently safe to advance at the speed employed.
Extreme caution in the operation of a commercial motor vehicle shall be exercised when hazardous conditions, such as those caused by snow, ice, sleet, fog, mist, rain, dust, or smoke, adversely affect visibility or traction. Speed shall be reduced when such conditions exist. If conditions become sufficiently dangerous, the operation of the commercial motor vehicle shall be discontinued and shall not be resumed until the commercial motor vehicle can be safely operated. Whenever compliance with the foregoing provisions of this rule increases hazard to passengers, the commercial motor vehicle may be operated to the nearest point at which the safety of passengers is assured.
[pg 2-15] 2.6.4 – Speed and Distance Ahead: You should always be able to stop within the distance you can see ahead. Fog, rain, or other conditions may require that you slowdown to be able to stop in the distance you can see. ... [pg 2-19] 2.8.3 – Drivers Who Are Hazards: Vehicles may be partly hidden by blind intersections or alleys. If you only can see the rear or front end of a vehicle but not the driver, then he or she can't see you. Be alert because he/she may back out or enter into your lane. Always be prepared to stop. ... [pg 2-26] 2.11.4 – Vehicle Factors: Headlights. At night your headlights will usually be the main source of light for you to see by and for others to see you. You can't see nearly as much with your headlights as you see in the daytime. With low beams you can see ahead about 250 feet and with high beams about 350-500 feet. You must adjust your speed to keep your stopping distance within your sight distance. This means going slowly enough to be able to stop within the range of your headlights. ... [pg 13-1] 13.1.2 – Intersections As you approach an intersection: Check traffic thoroughly in all directions. Decelerate gently. Brake smoothly and, if necessary, change gears. If necessary, come to a complete stop (no coasting) behind any stop signs, signals, sidewalks, or stop lines maintaining a safe gap behind any vehicle in front of you. Your vehicle must not roll forward or backward. When driving through an intersection: Check traffic thoroughly in all directions. Decelerate and yield to any pedestrians and traffic in the intersection. Do not change lanes while proceeding through the intersection. Keep your hands on the wheel.
A video shot from the vehicle's dashboard camera showed the safety driver looking down, away from the road. It also appeared that the driver's hands were not hovering above the steering wheel, which is what drivers are instructed to do so they can quickly retake control of the car. ... Uber moved from two employees in every car to one. The paired employees had been splitting duties — one ready to take over if the autonomous system failed, and another to keep an eye on what the computers were detecting. The second person was responsible for keeping track of system performance as well as labeling data on a laptop computer. Mr. Kallman, the Uber spokesman, said the second person was in the car for purely data related tasks, not safety. ... When Uber moved to a single operator, some employees expressed safety concerns to managers, according to the two people familiar with Uber's operations.
I am attempting to modify the paragraph so that it will make sense.
Eric Kvaalen (
talk) 15:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. But I have created the redirect. Andrewa ( talk) 07:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Death of Elaine Herzberg →
Uber developmental self-driving car pedestrian death – Per
WP:TITLE: "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources."
In the list of sources in the article, roughly 90% are about uber and or driverless and 5% are about the victim. A note about using "developmental" in the title. I think it is important to note this wasn't a driverless car. It was a driverless car being developed. Had known limitations and required a driver to oversee it. We have cars now that allow you to take hands off the steering wheel, but few would call them driverless. Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 18:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
As the article notes, "emergency braking maneuvers are not enabled while the vehicle is under computer control, to reduce the potential for erratic vehicle behavior". In other words, the entire obstacle avoidance subsystem had been disabled by Uber because it was so bad: reacting to too many "false positives". For noticing and avoiding obstacles, they relied 100% on the human "backup" driver. How does such a car even qualify as "autonomous" or "self-driving"? I think it's misleading to declare this death to be caused by a self-driving car, though unfortunately that's how it has been covered in many reliable sources, so we're kind of stuck. -- В²C ☎ 17:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
References
The standards of the law are standards of general application. The law takes no account of the infinite varieties of temperament, intellect, and education which make the internal character of a given act so different in different men. ... [Page 122] the averment that the defendant has been guilty of negligence ... that his alleged conduct does not come up to the legal standard. ... the question whether the court or the jury ought to judge of the defendant's conduct is wholly unaffected by the accident, ... it is entirely possible to give a series of hypothetical instructions adapted to every state of facts which it is open to the jury to find. ... the court may still take their opinion as to the standard. ... [page 123] ...supposing a state of facts often repeated in practice, is it to be imagined that the court is to go on leaving the standard to the jury forever? ... if the jury is, on the whole, as fair a tribunal as it is represented to be, the lesson which can be got from that source will be learned.... the court will find ... the conduct complained of usually is or is not blameworthy, ... or it will find the jury oscillating to and fro, and will see the necessity of making up its mind for itself. There is no reason why any other such question should not be settled, as well as that of liability for stairs with smooth strips of brass upon their edges.
The cars have reacted more slowly than human drivers and struggled to pass so-called track validation tests...Dara Khosrowshahi, the chief executive, acknowledged errors in Uber's earlier driverless car efforts. "We did screw up," he said in comments provided by Uber...as recently as a few weeks ago, the company's autonomous vehicle unit, Uber Advanced Technologies Group, or A.T.G., was still experiencing track testing "failures" on different versions of its software, according internal company emails. To match the reaction time of a human driver at 25 m.p.h., the cars needed to drive "20% slower than a human," Brandon Basso, a director at A.T.G., said in a Nov. 1 email. Even at slower speeds, the cars were passing only 82 percent of track tests, according to company documents...a test in early November ran Uber's vehicles through more than 70 categories at 25 m.p.h., they failed in 10 of them, including being slow to recognize another car that didn't yield.
A video shot from the vehicle's dashboard camera showed the safety driver looking down, away from the road. It also appeared that the driver's hands were not hovering above the steering wheel, which is what drivers are instructed to do so they can quickly retake control of the car. ... Uber moved from two employees in every car to one. The paired employees had been splitting duties — one ready to take over if the autonomous system failed, and another to keep an eye on what the computers were detecting. The second person was responsible for keeping track of system performance as well as labeling data on a laptop computer. Mr. Kallman, the Uber spokesman, said the second person was in the car for purely data related tasks, not safety. ... When Uber moved to a single operator, some employees expressed safety concerns to managers, according to the two people familiar with Uber's operations.
When, in the near future, a driverless car gets into an accident with another driverless car, it's going to be difficult to establish who is at fault. Is it the "driver," the car company, or even the programmer?..."You're going to get a whole host of new defendants," Kevin Dean, an attorney suing General Motors over its faulty ignition switches, told Bloomberg. "Computer programmers, computer companies, designers of algorithms, Google, mapping companies, even states...." Right now, the person with primary responsibility for a car accident is the car owner. But when a robot is driving the car, that is likely going to be hard for car owners to stomach.
[pg 2-15] 2.6.4 – Speed and Distance Ahead: You should always be able to stop within the distance you can see ahead. Fog, rain, or other conditions may require that you slowdown to be able to stop in the distance you can see. ... [pg 2-19] 2.8.3 – Drivers Who Are Hazards: Vehicles may be partly hidden by blind intersections or alleys. If you only can see the rear or front end of a vehicle but not the driver, then he or she can't see you. Be alert because he/she may back out or enter into your lane. Always be prepared to stop. ... [pg 2-26] 2.11.4 – Vehicle Factors: Headlights. At night your headlights will usually be the main source of light for you to see by and for others to see you. You can't see nearly as much with your headlights as you see in the daytime. With low beams you can see ahead about 250 feet and with high beams about 350-500 feet. You must adjust your speed to keep your stopping distance within your sight distance. This means going slowly enough to be able to stop within the range of your headlights. ... [pg 13-1] 13.1.2 – Intersections As you approach an intersection: Check traffic thoroughly in all directions. Decelerate gently. Brake smoothly and, if necessary, change gears. If necessary, come to a complete stop (no coasting) behind any stop signs, signals, sidewalks, or stop lines maintaining a safe gap behind any vehicle in front of you. Your vehicle must not roll forward or backward. When driving through an intersection: Check traffic thoroughly in all directions. Decelerate and yield to any pedestrians and traffic in the intersection. Do not change lanes while proceeding through the intersection. Keep your hands on the wheel.
Consensus is convincingly against renaming this article. While all respondents, to this request, have acted in good faith, the request is hereby closed without prejudice. Nevertheless, I strongly suggest that editors accept this outcome and voluntarily refrain from initiating further proposals to rename this article in the near term. ( non-admin closure) by -- John Cline ( talk) 09:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Request for article name proposals that meet WP:TITLE: "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." and is agreeable to the editors. Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 00:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Previously it was proposed to rename article to something like "uber death" here and here. The first discussion was an informal request for thoughts where the second one was a formal move request. The move request name was opposed as too complex. I'm unable to come up with a sleek name and hoping someone will come up with a name that is agreeable to the editors while meeting guidelines in wp:title. Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 00:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
when there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.. - The Gnome ( talk) 14:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm hatting this massive
WP:SOAPBOX post by a doubtlessly well-intentioned IP editor who nevertheless has some confusion as to the nature of our policies on this topic and whether this is the place to discuss them in such broad strokes. IP, please understand that while you may view neutrality as a questionable or infeasible objective as a philosophical matter, it is nevertheless a
pillar policy of this project and editors are expected to apply the guidelines within that policy to all content and editorial determinations. If you wish to debate this rather central precept of this project, there are spaces to do it in (
Wikipedia talk:NPOV being the primary one, though I think you will need to refine your objectives a little more before engaging there will be productive), but this is not such a space. The Oklahoma City bombing, assassination of Abraham Lincoln, Sharia law, relativistic physics, Exxon Valdez oil spill, statutes of limitation for homicide crimes, perpetual motion machines, and the ultimate cause of the death of George Carlin are all topics which can be discussed on their respective articles, if you feel there are POV issues to be discussed there. But this space is meant to discuss the content of this article and how to comport it with our polices as they do in fact exist,
WP:NOTAFORUM for an epistemological discussion about the fundamental limitations of human perspective or the impossibility of ever being truly "neutral", nor, for that matter, to discus causation as a legal issue.
I've left your last paragraph out of the collapse box because, although it involves a lot of WP:original research and it is doubtful your argument will be applied for that reason, it is at least on point to current discussion and the content of this article. For more information on how to approach discussion on talk pages, please see WP:TPG and WP:WWIN. Snow let's rap 02:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
References
Level 3 seems like a natural evolution of the tech you find in Tesla's Autopilot, which demands vigilance even if not everybody obeys. More work for the robot, less for the human. But it's a Herculean challenge for engineers and designers. "Having a human there to resume control is very difficult," says Bryan Reimer, an MIT researcher who studies driving behavior. Once relieved of the burden of constantly paying attention, people are quick to lose focus, and getting them back on task is difficult....Simply put, solving this problem is almost as difficult as figuring out how to make cars drive themselves. That's why Google—whose autonomous effort is now called Waymo—almost immediately abandoned any thought of building anything but a fully autonomous car.
AZC-180621
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).fatality
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Dara Khosrowshahi, the chief executive, acknowledged errors in Uber's earlier driverless car efforts. "We did screw up," he said in comments provided by Uber
i did ctrl + find for "apology" and could not find it. given Uber essentially murdered someone, was there an apology? 149.142.244.47 ( talk) 01:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I would dispute that a self-driving vehicle is classified as an "industrial robot". Firstly, the phrase is not found in this article. Category:Deaths caused by industrial robots cannot currently be justified by WP:CATV. A self-driving vehicle is a consumer robot, not an industrial one. An industrial robot works in a steel mill or auto assembly line, in an industrial context. A self-driving vehicle, out on the roads, serves the consumer and the vehicle driver or a cab customer in a commercial context. I would welcome WP:RS to shed light on this question. Elizium23 ( talk) 06:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
"According to Tempe police the car was traveling in a 35 mph (56 km/h) zone, but this is contradicted by a posted speed limit of 45 mph (72 km/h).[22]" This sentence, though somewhat clarified in the following material, really does not make sense. How is a speed limit (especially one above the alleged speed) a contradiction to a speed fact? I can go 10 mph on a street with a speed limit of 25 mph, and there is absolutely no contradiction. Kdammers ( talk) 20:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
The vehicle was going about 40 miles an hour on a street with a 45-mile-an-hour speed limit when it struck Ms. Herzberg, 49, who was walking her bicycle across the street, according to the Tempe police.That sentence in the article looks very mangled. In fact, wrong. Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)