An interesting point, probably depends on state/local laws where it happened
"If a pedestrian is hit by a car, the driver of the car that hit the pedestrian is usually (but not always) considered to be at fault, even if the pedestrian was not in a crosswalk.
The reason for this is that most states’ negligence and traffic laws require drivers to be alert to what is around them and to pay attention to hazards in the road. A pedestrian certainly qualifies as a hazard in the road. In other words, drivers have a legal obligation to see and avoid what is there to be seen."
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/pedestrian-hit-by-car-legal-options.html
I'm sure there is a huge exception to that standard when it comes to pedestrians crossing streets at night -- especially outside crosswalks and in areas where lighting is poor.
The reason for this is that most states’ negligence and traffic laws require drivers to be alert to what is around them and to pay attention to hazards in the road. A pedestrian certainly qualifies as a hazard in the road. In other words, drivers have a legal obligation to see and avoid what is there to be seen."
That's what I always thought. When you or I are driving, I am always looking for hazards, especially errant pedestrians, bike riders, baby carraiges, balls spilling out on the street with children to follow.
I was taught to give pedestrians a very wide berth and to slow down when approaching. Neither of these things happened in this case. I think the programming has a long way to go in this area. I wonder if the people programming these cars are drivers themselves or just programmers?
It is that way here in Texas. That said, there are certainly pedestrians and bike riders that seem to goad cars into hitting them. I hope cameras on the car show the accident. If she jumped in front of the car with the "I'm a pedestrian and I'm always right" mentality, then she foolishly brought about her own death. If a driver in the car could have seen her and stopped the car, then the driverless car and its owner are at fault. Maybe the car is only programmed to "see" a pedestrian who is in a proper crosswalk (which would also make the car at fault).
The reason for this is that most states’ negligence and traffic laws require drivers to be alert to what is around them and to pay attention to hazards in the road. A pedestrian certainly qualifies as a hazard in the road. In other words, drivers have a legal obligation to see and avoid what is there to be seen.”
...
Very true, but a driver isn’t expected by the law to yield to a pedestrian that darts in front of them.
Being in a bike lane sandwiched between northbound vehicular traffic; and, a vehicular traffic right-turn lane does not make a biker a pedestrian. Consider that the area of the accident was lighted with overhead street lamps. The car system has a prior known issue with acknowledging a bike lane or any occupants of a bike lane.
The vehicle system LIDAR sensor likely painted the person & bicycle combination near the car's path before the collision, but the software failed to properly determine what was being seen. Unless it can accurately categorize confusing sensor data, it apparently does not default to "brakes" to slow down, or com to a halt. It just merrily chugged along--and upon hitting an obstruction, required the human driver to override the A.I. and stop the vehicle. It never noted the impact as significant--just as some drunk drivers with a pedestrian lodged in the windshield continue about their travels.