On-Board Video Reveals Uber Autonomous Vehicle Fatal Crash

Tempe Police has released footage of the accident in which a cyclist was killed by a self-driving Volvo XC90 owned by Uber, on March 18.

The video reveals the actual moment of impact, shot using a dashboard-mounted camera, as well as the safety driver’s reaction, or better said, lack of reaction. Emergency services arrived at the scene shortly after and rushed the pedestrian to hospital. Unfortunately, it was too late for the woman who was crossing the street in a non-designated area, as she passed away.

It’s worth stating that at the time of the accident, the Uber-operated Volvo XC90 was in self-driving mode, according to the police.

Following the incident, Uber suspended its autonomous vehicle program in Tempe, Pittsburgh, San Francisco and Toronto, announcing that they are cooperating with the authorities on the ongoing investigation.

Toyota also suspended its own tests of self-driving cars on public roads, because of the “emotional effect” that the Uber crash may have had on their test drivers. The Japanese automaker was reportedly still deciding whether it will purchase Uber’s autonomous software, one week before the fatal accident, and hasn’t announced anything on the subject since then.

Warning: Graphic content below!

VIDEO

  • Fallible Guy

    Unfortunate for all parties involved. There were multiple factors in play (that are now more evident) which led to the event, hopefully autonomous vehicles can adapt and improve to save lives.

    • Jay

      Hopefully the person behind the wheel isn’t on their phone so they can hit the brakes. Self driving mode on or not they she still be at fault for relying on the system.

      • GeoSnipes

        u tell me, could you have done anything different? did you actually see how close the car was before the person even came into view?

        • Jay

          The street was wide open, no blind curves no other cars where around. The person walking a bike would have stuck out like a sore thumb.

          • danno

            I disagree that the cyclist was easily visible. That was a particularly dark area she was crossing, if you notice the area was just after the overhead lighting. With today’s tight lighting patterns, it looks like the cyclist was basically invisible until she walked into the Volvo headlight pattern, and by then, it was too late.
            Also, the pedestrian/cyclist could have seen the car coming from much further away than the driver of the car, but just didn’t look, assumed or didn’t care if the car would avoid her.
            I say the majority of the fault lays with the pedestrian/cyclist.

          • Jay

            Just because it’s dark doesn’t make the drivers visibility 50ft. If their eyes were on the road longer they would have seen them. Does anyone not care that she wasn’t paying attention?

          • Erzhik

            It’s a low quality, 480p video from a dash cam. Ask anyone who has a dash cam, they will all tell you that dash cam shows darker than it is in reality. Just because it’s dark in the video, doesn’t mean it’s that dark in real life.

          • D3X

            I doubt that’s from a dashcam. that’s the camera used for driverless technology. Which is at least 1080p(I would imagine 4K). the sample we’re looking at has been downsampled along the lines from the various media outlets.

          • SteersUright

            You absolutely cant know that for a fact so why speculate and already blame another person for someone’s death? Thats not just baseless, its cruel. It looks VERY dark in the video and this may have been a situation where nobody and no system would have seen this woman with enough time to react. Isnt it a bit wiser and more appropriate to wait until all of the facts emerge post-investigation before pinning this on the driver and potentially sending her away for a long time?

          • Jay

            did you see the part of the video when before impact the driver was not looking at the road?

        • Andrew Riles

          The person behind the wheel spent approx five seconds just prior to the incident with their eyes off the road, so didn’t even give themselves the chance to spot the cyclist before it was too late….

  • Howstar

    Erm wheres radar?
    wheres the lidar?

    • exeptor

      Good question. In theory autonomous cars should be able to drive with light off and still see everything out there. No need to rely on cameras only.

    • OdysseyTag

      I’m just as confused. In Euro NCAP (or any NCAP for that matter), they do the auto emergency braking (AEB) test for pedestrians with a rigged dummy (normally at 40km and 60km) – a scenario which is meant in part to avoid situations such as this one, mind you on cars which don’t even have the grade of autonomy featured on Uber’s fleet.

      Granted those tests simulate city speeds whereas this vehicle was on a freeway, I’d imagine a car such as this one would be kitted to the brim with the latest and greatest object detection tech. It truly is unfortunate but I’m sure the investigation down the line will give light to what really happened.

    • SteersUright

      Agreed. I think everyone is shocked, confused and very curious as to where the tech failed here.

  • Howstar

    Also a large portion of the blame needs to fall on the woman who sadly died
    Walking out onto unlit fast road with oncoming traffic
    Autonomous or not this would have been an accident..

    • wait a minute

      This could so easily be a large animal moving cross the road, which you’d thought the radar would have detected.

      • Jay

        Yep. Or a person. I get that she was Jay walking too but that doesn’t excuse the system for not detecting and object coming on to the path.

        • Status

          If it’s relying on digital optical technology, like that of a conventional digital camera, then their ability to see things at night would be compromised.

          • Jay

            So you agree the system is flawed.

          • Status

            I didn’t say the entirety of autonomous driving it was flawed. I’m saying that if Uber was solely using an optical system like that of a digital camera, they will complicate their case in court. It is likely they have multiple optical systems in use, but that also would need to be proven in court.

          • Jay

            Either way it proves the system should be halted all together. Systems can and will fail. And when they do things like this will happen. No matter what sensor they were using the driver was in the car and could have prevented it if their eyes were on the road instead of a phone.

          • Status

            Prototypical systems that aren’t ready for production models yet will not be halted because of one accident, especially not because of the pleas of alarmists.

            Furthermore, in the thousands and thousands of plane crashes that occurred in 100 years, where were you to cry that the whole system was broken and needed to be shut down?

            Do you know why? Because the scientific body of forensic and scientific aviation experts the world over sought ways to learn from the mistakes and failures of the past and apply them to the future of aerospace technology. They didn’t run and hide, as you are proposing. They studied the problem, issued recommendations, engineers put it into actions, and air travel is by far and away safer than anything by car.

            There will be lives lost with any new frontier of travel. Planes, spacecraft, trains, cars, all have lost lives. But the engineers sought to improve the technology because they believed it served a greater public good, and to throw it all away because of a death would be the ultimate irresponsibly.

          • Jay

            This is playing with fire. Too close to home for me. This should not exist. I don’t even fully trust the auto brake system in my own car.

          • Matt

            As you shouldn’t. The auto brake on your car is not meant to be used instead of a driver, it’s a last resort. This Uber self driving car and others like it is a bit different.
            What do you mean it should not exist? Self driving cars? Advancemnt in general?

            Advancement in technology leads us to safer means. From transportation to medical to architecture to so many other fields. Today we are much more stringent on providing tighter safety restaints in forms of regulation, protocols among other things that reduce risk more than ever before. Compare the space program from the 60s to now and there’s no way we would have done many of the things now as we did back then because the risk would be considered far too high. There will always be risk in developing new tech, especially like self driving cars.
            Another way to look at it is we have been flying for decades as a main form of transportation yet it’s still a large news story when a plane does go down yet the tens of thousands of deaths in the us alone as a result of driving does not make the news unless it’s cases like this one, where a new technology is involved.

          • Jay

            Plain accidents rarely happen due to pilot error. Why they go through proper training. So should drivers. If we had better drivers there would be less accidents.

          • D3X

            That’s not true. Plane accidents rarely happens because of the technologythats been added increasingly over the years to airplanes and have eliminated most of the human error.

          • GeoSnipes

            Could you had done any different? No, so stop bashing the system.

          • Jay

            I could have. Take a defensive driving course and see how much different you drive. This comes down to distracted driving.

          • TheHake

            You maybe, but 99.9999999999999999% of drivers would have hit her as well.

          • Jay

            I doubt it.

          • SteersUright

            Fact is, after much time driving in the dark MOST drivers aren’t using “perifial” anything, they are way more tired than any self-driving system and likely just trying to keep their own eyes open.

          • Jay

            Not sure what you are getting at with this one.. You saying you know that this person was tired and that was their excuse for not paying attention to the road? Also that the system should have been able to detect the walking pedestrian?

          • SteersUright

            Wow, good to see another person with common sense and the gumption to admit that this sad accident may not have been avoidable by any person or system due to the laws of physics. You cant suddenly appear in front of heavy, fast moving objects and not expect a very high risk of an accident occurring. That said, I do think that in the near future, this incident will serve to propagate an interest in making these systems somewhat predictive and even better able to “see” in extreme dark or difficult conditions (severe weather, etc).

          • LWOAP

            We get it. You don’t trust autonomous systems. You’ve made that point abundantly clear but this whole “distracted driving” excuse you are limping to the barn with holds no water. The person behind the wheel was there to take over if the system failed and needed a human to manually take over control of the vehicle. Was the person actually in manual control of the vehicle when it happens? No, they were not. This was an unfortunate accident that could not have been avoided even if a person was in full control of the vehicle. And I don’t believe for a second you could have avoided if you were in the same situation. You’re just using this tragedy to bash to the system because you don’t like it and you’re afraid of it.

            Whether you like it or not they will continue to test and develop autonomous technology with a greater emphasis on safety for both cyclists and pedestrians alike. It’s not fool proof but it’s a hell of a lot safer than actual human drivers who kill far more people behind the wheel than autonomous vehicles.

          • Jay

            I know it will continue, I’m just saying that in my opinion it shouldn’t. As a human race we depend too much on technology. I’m also saying that some people should not be behind the wheel. That just like saying some people shouldn’t have guns which is also true. If we have a better system in place to only allow certain people on the road we would have less accidents and a system like this wouldn’t be as necessary.

          • D3X

            That’s silly. Human race already depend on technology; computers, smartphones, electricity, communication, water treatment, industrialization, agriculture, heat etc. It would be completely primitive without any of these things, sure you can live without any of those things, but it sure as well won’t be comfortable. I understand what you’re saying Jay, and this is why this technology is still being worked on. Eventually once it’s out in full bloom, it would be seamless like any of the other technologies listed above and fully accepted by society.

          • Jay

            What tech is seamless?

          • Status

            Written language is a thoroughly integrated technology.
            Time keeping is now accurate to billions of years and underscores countless others technologies.
            Mesopotamian farming practices that have sustained millions of lives still work reliability to this day.
            The universal joint is thousands of years old and can be found in every single car on the road today working just as easily as it did when the Greeks put it to use.
            Early human knapped stones to produce sharpened stones, which begat sharper stones, which begat even sharper stones, and knapped stones can build walls everywhere stones are found.
            Hammers have slowly evolved over time to become ever versatile in their construction and design to even more durable.
            The common house match – and synthases of chemistry and biology.
            Pencils as a tool for writing love letters as easily as they write declarations of war.

            Those above articles of technology are all around us and are fully and seamlessly integrated into modern society. You can’t fault those seamless technology examples; that might explain why you’ve over looked them.

          • Jay

            No Im talking about tech with a computer chip. Something electronic… try again..

          • Status

            Moving the goal posts to suit you. Technology is everywhere, but to you it’s exclusively a PCB. I knew you’d take the bait.

            But you’ve told me to try again, so I can humour you again:

            There are parking meters that are running Java in humid Indonesian cities as easily as they do -45 temperatures paired with a wind chill.
            Ram will downclock itself to the next fastest speed of a header to provide seamless interoperability without the user ever noticing.
            The common computer hard drive has worked on principles developed almost 60 years ago, and still serves as an indispensable and extremely reliable means of storage at both consumer and enterprise levels.
            3D modeling software has reduced lengthily development processes and highlighted potential complications early on for everything from tin cans to skyscrapers.
            Cloud distribution models have brought entertainment and information to every corner of the globe faster and more reliably than any newspaper could.
            This VERY WEBSITE can automatically format itself to the screen to suit whatever device you read it from irrespective of the OS, the browser, the architecture, and the age of the hardware underpinning it all.
            Despite their relative age, a CD player will produce sound quality superior to any vinyl record without any distortion, cracks or pops.
            Medical imaging can use three dimensional body modeling, and with that an entire body and its tissues can be visualized and cataloged to diagnose ailments and disorders without even putting a scalpel to the skin.
            Digital archival technology documented the world of print, film, and audio in both news and entertainment values that existed before you were born as a accessible and disseminating means that can illustrate the world that was and leave you with a greater understanding of what was.

            As before, those above articles of technology are all around us and are fully and seamlessly integrated into modern society. You can’t fault those seamless technology examples; that might explain why you’ve over looked them.

          • Jay

            No, they all stop working if/when something fails internally. So you haven’t proven anything. Here’s my point. Day or Night the system should have detected whether an object or person was crossing its path whether it had reflectors or not. The goal was never moved.

          • D3X

            The goal of Autonomous driving was to never eliminate accidents. I don’t think that’s ever possible, it’s to reduce it drastically by removing human error. As long as Autonomous driving causes less accidents than human driving, it’s better for society. It’s already drastically less with our current state of technology, and can only be better when they integrate with more infrastructure and information, like live Maps, traffic data crowd sourcing, inter-car communication and the works.

          • Status

            ANYTHING can fail/stop working if something fails internally, from hammers to mainframes. Hammers can fail internally and the cascading effect of their failure can lead to delays and/or poor construction quality, injuries, or even death. That’s a logical non-argument. All you’re really saying is long-winded version of Murphy’s law, and you haven’t established anything.

            Have you even considered that the system could be logically looking for people in crosswalks (where they should be) and logically looking for the reflectors in car taillights while on the road?

            The goal posts are moved by you if you’re so narrow minded to think that technology is anything with silicon and anything invented before the 1900’s doesn’t qualify as technology.

          • Jay

            Motu don’t understand the fact that that is my only point. You are thinking too much about what I said or how I said it instead of realizing that since it’s true the driver should have been paying attention just like the drivers in all of the other autonomous vehicle accidents. Most of them are avoidable just like this one was.

          • Status

            Your point, as jaded and malformed as it was, is that if some form of technology does go wrong or doesn’t function exactly as intended that it’s not worth the effort of engineers to try to find out why it doesn’t work, and it’s far better off to simply scrap the entire technology and dependent technologies out of irrational fear and worry.

            Gotcha.

          • Jay

            Incorrect, I was specifically talking about autonomous passenger cars but of course there could be more.

          • D3X

            computer chip? We’re been digital computers for over 70 years. Digital currency pretty much runs our global economy seamlessly. Try depositing money or withdrawing money without a computer.

            Besides, we’re not even talking about computer chip technology in cars, I mean virtually every road legal running car the last 30 years have a computer chip.

            We’re talking about Artificial Intelligence with Autonomous driving. which is clearly way over your head at this point. Try to understand the technology and the philosophy of the technology before being afraid of it.

          • Jay

            I’m not afraid of it. It’s just not wise to depend solely on it like this driver and money others have in the past. I think that even when it’s near perfect you should still not fully put your trust in a computer. I use computer as a genera term but you know what I mean.

          • D3X

            No. I actually I don’t know what you mean. There is nothing near perfect.

            Airplane Autopilot systems are completely Autonomous, and have been for awhile.

            In fact you would rather trust a human Taxi driver whom you just met, being in the driver’s seat; who is far from perfect in terms of skills, reaction time, easily distracted, and could be under some influence? This Uber driverless technology has been driving on roads 24/7 for the past year, everyday, and collectively hundreds of cars, which all feed information and learn from the data. Which is thousands of countless driving hours, and only one accident. That’s impressive if you think about it.

            Anyhow, this thread is far outgrew you and your knowledge apparently.

          • Jay

            Actually you aren’t thinking at all. I’ll dumb it down for you. Do you know what a Grade Crossing Signal is? The sign that comes down near a Railroad. Do you know why busses and trucks are required to stop, look and listen before crossing? It’s because it could malfunction just like an autonomous system. Thats why you shouldn’t depend on the radars and sensors in an autonomous vehicle. Autopilot on a plain still requires one of the two pilots to be awake and attentive. The driver of this vehicle should have been paying attention just in case of a malfunction. Had that been the case brakes could have been applied earlier and this person may not have died.

          • Status

            Conversely, the grade crossing signal could also function as designed, as could the autonomous software. The advantage can still go to the software, especially if it can learn via algorithmic models.

            Who says the car has to rely only on looking for the flashing lights and the lowering bar? Why can’t the autonomous car do like humans do and LISTEN for a train? Why can’t it use cameras mounted left and right to look up and down the track? Why can’t it rely on the visual and auditory evidence from other nearby autonomous cars to better decide the best course of action?

            Really, your whole argument hangs on ‘it could go wrong’, whereas I can just as easily say and with as much gravitas ‘it could go right’. Humans have killed themselves at level crossings too, and they did so because they didn’t rely upon their senses to make the best judgment.

          • Jay

            Now you understand my point.

          • Status

            Your point was that we should run in fear of anything new designed after 1975.

          • Jay

            Never implied anyone should run in fear. Just have common sense.

          • SteersUright

            Its altogether, not “all together”. And accidents happen every single day where people get hurt or killed by buses, trains, boats, airplanes, jet skis, machinery in factories, even with tons of automation and safety protocols in place. Shall we “halt” all those systems too? Or learn from and improve when met with tragedies like this one?

          • Jay

            No but we should stay away from this though. Having this type of system does not mean take your attention off of the road. Whomever does is negligent and should be held at fault.

    • Cameron

      Key word walking, if she moved her lazy ass she probably would have lived. How stupid do you have to be? When I cross a street I run, even in the broad daylight. Its kind of common sense.

  • Infinite1

    Sad to hear

  • That was plain suicidal. This would have resulted in death even if the driver was fully alert. The only question is, why did the car not recognize the moving object? Even a non-autonomous car with night vision would have detected it.

  • Bash

    Was the system off or something? huh, as if only the cruse control was engaged!!

  • GlobalPostitpad

    Passive safety improvement:
    An SUV is not suitable car for autopilot testing. SUV high bonnets have been shown to bad w.r.t. pedestrian safety.
    As they have a small fleet of cars how about putting some foam coverings on leading edge of car. It might aesthetically look bad but a news report about a pedestrian surviving being hit by an autonomous car is better than a report about a pedestrian being killed. The Google/Waymo self-driving clown car is a better shaped car to be testing with.
    Active safety:
    Where was LIDAR, RADAR, Infra-red.
    I’d guess the computer dismissed the object as stationery as the woman was shielded behind the shopping trolley.
    Why aren’t they running over deer; they are as invisible to headlights or more so as a woman in a black coat.

    • Jason Miller

      Deer in the middle of Phoenix?

      • GlobalPostitpad

        self-driving car isn’t intended for just Phoenix. Deer at night are near invisible until you are eyeball to eyeball with the one lying dead on your bonnet(“hood” for you Americans).

  • salamOOn

    i honestly think that driver fully focused on driving could prevent that …. there was no oncoming traffic and enough time to swerve, and you even dont need sensors and cameras to swerve….

  • Jay

    This is a wide open street. The person behind the wheel should have had their eyes on the road and saw the woman crossing the road. The camera isn’t as clear for us as their own eyesight would have been for the driver.

  • ErnieB

    What was behind the wheel though?

    • Jay

      Haha not sure either.

    • BlackPegasus

      It was a non conformist gender neutral human being……….. or, it was that fat chick from the 1980s Facts of Life TV show.

    • Kate E

      Jabba the Hut

  • Six_Tymes

    effen awful. hello big time lawyers, GO TO TOWN

    • Jason Miller

      And how many people die each day in car accidents? Everyone is acting like this is the end of the world.

      • Jay

        If the system doesn’t work get rid of it. It will most likely never get to the point a blind person can be behind the wheel so what’s the point.

        • Status

          All it has to do be be acceptable is to kill less in totality than what humans do. The automakers aren’t going to scrap it all because of this accident.

          • Jay

            You’re right because it should have been scrapped before it killed someone. The government doesn’t what kills people it’s a sad place we live in.

          • Status

            If the automakers can prove that they can make a more efficient traffic flow than what a manually operated car an do, it’ll keep them in business longer. People can’t drive cars responsibly anyway, and the sooner manually operated cars are removed, the safer road travel will be. Further education is not the answer, as 100 drivers working in concert will never work as efficiently as 100,000 autonomous cars coordinating their actions with one another.

            I should also remind you, the victim was jaywalking.

          • Jay

            I should remind you that it doesn’t matter if she was jay walking, U Turing, or doing backflips. There was a hazard on the road either the system or driver behind the wheel should have recognized.

        • Jason Miller

          “If the system doesn’t work get rid of it.” I can say the same for most drivers on the road…

          • Jay

            Yea take their licenses too, I do not disagree with you.

  • Status

    The bikes wheels didn’t have any light reflectors, or they were removed.

    • Jay

      You’re know this how?

      • Status

        I know this from the video posted earlier this week.

      • SteersUright

        Yes, if a person “running across the street” jumped right in front of a fast moving vehicle they would indeed likely get hit and people DO get hit all of the time. These self-driving cars aren’t programmed to hunt and kill pedestrians. Something clearly went wrong here whether its the system’s reaction time, limits of its capabilities, or the woman simply making a poor choice to cross the road when and where she shouldn’t have.

        • Jay

          Yes its clear she was jay walking, but at this point in development you’d think things like this have already been figured out that this can happen. Running or walking most of you think that you wouldn’t have seen her either, but I guarentee that she would have been visible. I know I cant be the only one the looks at all lanes of the road when driving to see if a animal, car or person is running across /crossing the street.

  • BlackPegasus

    The woman was jaywalking with the bike in tow. No reflexive clothing, no lights on the bicycle. She facilitated her own death.

  • Finkployd

    I have to say, that woman could not ignore the headlights and road noise of the incoming speeding car

  • kachuks

    Oncoming headlights are usually a good signal to not cross the road.

    Then again, this shows the shortcoming of self-driving tech. A human (one paying attention) could have potentially swerved to avoid impact.

  • Marty

    A human driver would most likely have crashed too. That’s not the issue here.

    The question is how the heck the car could not notice a person with a bike, walking across the empty road from the left! If these autonomous cars only have visible light spectrum sensors they should NOT be allowed on public roads.

  • TrevP

    So sad. What makes it even worst is on the interior view you have a human behind the wheel not paying attention. That is the issue. Autonomous or not, this would have happened anyways cause the human decided to not pay attention to the road and relied on the car. I’m afraid this will happen more as more people rely on the car to do the driving. It would be different if the car was driving with nobody behind the wheel.

    • Vassilis

      I think the human wasn’t paying attention because the car was autonomous. If it wasn’t, she would.

      • TrevP

        Eh, I would’t say that she would be paying attention…But, I do agree with you. If I was in an autonomous vehicle I’d probably do the same. But the whole reason they are in the drivers seat is to take over just in case….if she were to be in the passenger or back seat, I’d put all the blame on the car. She was in the driver seat where there’s a brake pedal so to me, were she watching the road, it could have been prevented or less injury would have occurred. Regardless, it’s a sad situation and proves that autonomous driving isn’t quite ready.

  • thunder bolt

    The System must be as good as human or even better to drive by itself. In this event, it should have detected a person figure from the other side of the street + the speed of that person moving toward the car’s driving direction and turned on caution mode. I don’t think this mode was active or implemented. The woman on the other hand deserved it, jay walking or jay walking in the dark of night is a no no. From the video, I’m not quite sure if even a human driver could have enough time to brake. The pedestrian appeared out of no where.

  • Vassilis

    I know watching the video and being there are two different things but I couldn’t see the woman appearing even when knowing she would.

  • Kate E

    Who’s the family going to sue?

  • fabri99

    I despise autonomous cars deeply, but I don’t think a driver could have stopped in time. As some have already said, I wonder why this car had no radar systems (or why these didn’t work). Something like that could have seen the danger far in advance and the car could have stopped in all safety. What went wrong here?

  • LeStori

    Human crossing the road without looking. Self preservation mode malfunctoning. Organic Intelligence (OI) failure. Return to manufacture for rectification. This “accident” should never have happened. Many reasons starting with the pedestrian. Will be interesting to see if we find out why the autonomous system failed to attempt to stop. Sorry state of affairs for all involved.
    Meanwhile the autonomous “steam Roller” will continue to roll. There is potential to save tens of thousands of lives a year. Not to mention the large number of injured. Stand in it’s way if you wish to be a flat pack human.

  • The car in front of them was far enough away that, if this were me at night, I’d have the brights on. You would have seen the person on the bike easily with the XC90’s brights. But not going to second guess the car or the driver. The idiot crossing a road in total darkness in front of an inbound automobile was clearly at fault.

  • ediotsavant

    Uber is misleading the public. Look at this video posted by someone of the same road.
    https://youtu.be/CRW0q8i3u6E
    Now look at the Uber video. Notice anything? In the Uber video there is no string of lights at the side of the road shown in the front camera view. But look in the in the car view of the driver. Notice the string of lights? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/040c5cc4fa9ced698baea973abb5f9243cc64c2a3dec35f1c9ddaf09f28bc0a1.jpg

  • dawyer

    All the news showing how Uber absolve from responsibility and the government is helping it. Now we all blame the safety driver. But what’s the job regulation? Even she is Neglect of duty, I don’t think she look like as a professional to be involved to this High-risk high-technology test item project. Or Death accident soon or later actually is their anticipation plan , to see what’s people really want. What the cost to being accepted. Last question is which kind of people really gain the advantage just like Xspace?

    • dawyer

      a studies say how people’s brain keep FOCUS AND CONCENTRATION which is very simple. that is just keep doing something you enjoying. And all the time vehicle engineer and designer is working on to fulfill this to let driver keep FOCUS AND CONCENTRATION on the road. Self-driving car designed to set up a Safety-driver is really antithetic against all of it. So It’s not hard to question it is a scapegoated matter for protective precautions to Big business.

  • Cameron

    At what point are we doing to start blaming people for simply being stupid? EVEN if the driver was paying attention, they wouldn’t have been able to stop in time, only moments before can you actually see the person. Who crosses street in the middle of the night when you know damn well there are cars coming? Idiots do that’s for sure.

Someone Really Went To Town With This McLaren 720S Rendering

This is what a McLaren 720S would look like on steroids.

Believe It Or Not, This Is The One, True Playboy Car – And It Can Be Yours

This obscure American oddity is coming up for auction next month in Hershey.

Nissan Recalls More Than 215,000 Sedans And SUVs Over Brake Fluid-Related Fire Risk

Nissan has found a fault with the brake systems of the Maxima, Murano, Pathfinder and QX60.

Delivery Mileage McLaren Senna For $1.6 Million Is Almost A Bargain

It’s not exactly affordable, but it’s ‘just’ $500k more than the official price tag.

Widebody Divo Would Make A Much Wilder Chiron-Based Bugatti

Bugatti reportedly has three more models in the pipeline, and one of them is a more hardcore Chiron.

Camaro, Blazer And Corvette ZR1 Are The Sharp End Of Chevy’s Lineup

The sporting spirit is alive and well at Chevrolet, and these are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

Mercedes GLE Vs BMW X5: A Tale Of Two Brand-New German Premium SUVs

The GLE, formerly known as the ML, and the BMW X5 have been direct rivals since the late ’90s.

2019 Suzuki Jimny Is A Breath Of Fresh Air Among All Those ‘Urban Crossovers’

Despite its shortcomings, the old Jimny had a cult following, and its successor follows the same formula.

Seat Tarraco Is A Possible Candidate To Get The Cupra Treatment

The Spanish automaker wants to broaden its performance sub-brands portfolio, and the Tarraco would fit the bill.

What If Renault Reinvented The Iconic F1-Powered Espace For The 21st Century?

Like its ancestor, it would use a wild carbon bodywork and be powered by Renault’s Formula 1 powerplant.