Based on the evidence you have put forth your conclusion is logical and reasonable. You have convinced me that my statement was in error.

> The backup driver in the car was apparently looking at their phone or some other device and not watching the road at the time.

"According to Uber, the developmental self-driving system relies on an attentive operator to intervene if the system fails to perform appropriately during testing. In addition, the operator is responsible for monitoring diagnostic messages that appear on an interface in the center stack of the vehicle dash and tagging events of interest for subsequent review"

She was looking at a device, yes, but not her phone.

Uber put one person on a two person job, with predictable results.

After the crash, police obtained search warrants for Vasquez's cellphones as well as records from the video streaming services Netflix, YouTube, and Hulu. The investigation concluded that because the data showed she was streaming The Voice over Hulu at the time of the collision, and the driver-facing camera in the Volvo showed "her face appears to react and show a smirk or laugh at various points during the time she is looking down", Vasquez may have been distracted from her primary job of monitoring road and vehicle conditions. Tempe police concluded the crash was "entirely avoidable" and faulted Vasquez for her "disregard for assigned job function to intervene in a hazardous situation".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Elaine_Herzberg#Distr...

Fair enough, you're right, she was likely looking at her phone.

The rest of my point still stands though.