3 ms·
"Not at fault" is also not equivalent to "could not have prevented the accident". For example - I was nearly rear ended by another driver, but I noticed they w
by Nadya 10y ago
"Not at fault" is also not equivalent to "could not have prevented the accident".
For example - I was nearly rear ended by another driver, but I noticed they were failing to brake and pulled into an oncoming traffic lane (after checking there was no oncoming traffic of course). I would not have been at fault but also managed to avoid the accident altogether.
Also just because you aren't "legally" at fault doesn't necessarily mean the accident wasn't a result of poor judgement on your behalf.
For example, slamming on one's brakes noticing you're about to miss a turn you need to take and you get rear ended. You won't be legally found "at fault" but the accident is largely "your fault" for unpredictable driving, slamming on your brakes, and having been so inattentive to have nearly missed your turn.
- aetherson 10y agoThis is true, but keep in mind when you look at the safety measures of driverless cars that they're likely being judged via these same, flawed metrics. Google's driverless cars have been in a lot of accidents! Yes, most of them have been "not the fault of the software," but the same caveats you just described apply to the software as well. So I think we're at least comparing apples to apples.