Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: MillCreek on September 17, 2020, 12:22:56 AM
-
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/16/913530100/backup-driver-of-autonomous-uber-suv-charged-with-negligent-homicide-in-arizona?utm_term=nprnews&utm_campaign=npr&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&fbclid=IwAR3HcsP3CeIkML7XyGPTXYr3gaaGh0N3Sbqsv7_YJjwod5_luku_RDH21J8&fbclid=IwAR18bC2S0brg8hjSGIlknMQbM2JR_JS_a6owp35j0RZ5LZ1LcNY4Q3TdaI0
Are the charges appropriate? She was watching 'The Voice' on her cell phone when the autonomous car ran over a bicyclist. She was in the car to prevent this very thing from happening.
-
Yes, the charges are appropriate, just as they would be if there was no automation in the car. She, not the automation, was the operator of the vehicle.
-
Yep. She wasn't doing what she was supposed to do.
Basically the same as if she were texting and drove over someone on the street.
-
While I agree the backup driver is responsible for the death of the pedestrian, I also have to wonder about people who jaywalk at night, in the dark, in dark clothing, and just ASSUME the car will stop for them.
The cars aren't sneaking up on you, as they are all lit up at night. What possessed this woman to just walk out in front of a car, in the dark, in the middle of a street?
https://kjzz.org/content/1618588/negligent-homicide-charges-filed-tempe-self-driving-uber-death (link with the dashcam video, which thankfully is cut just before the actual hit.)
Also, this was from 2018. Did we talk about this before?
Edit: we did. http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=56967.0 And it seems I was similarly perplexed by the pedestrian, then.
-
I think the concept is the >>>>>person <<<<< in the car is the responsible agent for control of the vehicle, not the Knight Industries Two Thousand wonder computer.
If a idiot mostly bag of water blunders into the road, and it's reasonable to believe the HUMAN DRIVER could not physically avoid hitting the idiot mostly bag of water because it blundered out from behind an obstruction, there is no culpability to the driver, as long as he/she stops and tries to render aid.
But, if the driver is also an idiot mostly bag of water and is texting, or playing bingo, and NOT PAYING ATTENTION, and kills another idiot mostly bag of water, the driver is criminally negligent. Even if the driver is David Hasselhoff and the car is K.I.T.T.
-
...I also have to wonder about people who jaywalk at night, in the dark, in dark clothing, and just ASSUME the car will stop for them.
I see it all the time, especially as days get shorter. We have a popular neighborhood park near the house. It's unnerving how many people will be jogging/walking/whatever in the early morning or at night with no light, and while wearing dark clothing and nothing reflective. More than once the only reason I had any kind of warning someone was there was because their dog's eyes reflected back.
Campus is even worse because of the "Yield to Pedestrians" rule which must somehow magically alter the laws of physics. People will walk straight out into the road - head down, staring at their phones, and with headphones in - without breaking stride or so much as a sideways glance. They just presume everyone will yield no matter how close or fast that car, truck, or bus might be. The really fun ones are those walking straight down a sidewalk who suddenly do a 90 to cross the road. No warning, no projection, no signaling, nothing. Just BAM! and suddenly they're in the roadway. That's the pedestrians. Don't even get me started on the bicyclists who think they own the whole damn road and that traffic laws don't apply to them.
Brad
-
I think I remember this case. I saw the video. I believe it was a homeless woman who just walked out in front of the car in the dark. I think it would have been hard for a human driver to stop in time.