Even if the driver and the woman crossing the street were both to blame, it doesn't mean that Uber was any less to blame. Accidents in critical situations are typically multi-system failures, and every failure needs to be addressed.
There are four entities who could have and should have relatively straightforwardly avoided this death.
1. The woman shouldn't have crossed the street there and then.
2. The safety driver shouldn't have been looking at her phone (if that's indeed what she was doing).
3. Uber's automation should have caused the vehicle to brake much sooner.
4. That street should have been designed much safer. The design of a lit crosswalk on the median encourages people to cross there, so much stronger discouragement is required. Furthermore, a 35mph limit in an area with pedestrians is going to regularly cause pedestrian fatalities. That's a trade-off most people seem willing to make, but if you make that trade-off you have to own it. If the speed limit was 20mph that woman would be alive today.
As far as I can see it, all 4 entities are 100% responsible for the death of the pedestrian.
None of those 4 entities passed the "reasonable person" test with their actions, therefore all 4 are fully responsible.
Sure you can argue all you want on whether one entity's misbehaviour is more egregious than the others. It doesn't matter; all 4 engaged in behaviour that regularly kills people at a rate much higher than acceptable.
Sure, fine. But this is the world as it is. Badly designed roads everywhere - very, very occasionally with enough accidents one gets fixed. (Keep an eye on local news for that one). People crossing where they "shouldn't" - all the time. Wearing black clothes - hey try cycling at night, they're all over the bicycle paths like that - thank heaven for LED lights.
This is what automated cars have to be able to solve. The real world is not a special case.
There are four entities who could have and should have relatively straightforwardly avoided this death.
1. The woman shouldn't have crossed the street there and then.
2. The safety driver shouldn't have been looking at her phone (if that's indeed what she was doing).
3. Uber's automation should have caused the vehicle to brake much sooner.
4. That street should have been designed much safer. The design of a lit crosswalk on the median encourages people to cross there, so much stronger discouragement is required. Furthermore, a 35mph limit in an area with pedestrians is going to regularly cause pedestrian fatalities. That's a trade-off most people seem willing to make, but if you make that trade-off you have to own it. If the speed limit was 20mph that woman would be alive today.
As far as I can see it, all 4 entities are 100% responsible for the death of the pedestrian.
None of those 4 entities passed the "reasonable person" test with their actions, therefore all 4 are fully responsible.
Sure you can argue all you want on whether one entity's misbehaviour is more egregious than the others. It doesn't matter; all 4 engaged in behaviour that regularly kills people at a rate much higher than acceptable.