4 ms·

Yet this tragic accident will now set a precedent and finally start to scratch the delicate unspoken question: Who is responsible now?

pishpash 9y ago
Obviously Uber in this case, but as mentioned in response to a separate article, AI's must be like pets or children and have a liable guardian.
- birdmanjeremy 9y ago
  Not obviously. Let's wait to judge until we have the facts. The pedestrian was outside of the crosswalk. There's not a whole lot of information about the events that lead up to the accident. It is possible that a pedestrian is at fault if they stepped in the way of moving traffic outside of a crosswalk. It's also possible Uber's cars are not up to the task of driving on public roadways.
  - bluetwo 9y ago
    The penalty for walking outside a crosswalk is not death.
    - birdmanjeremy 9y ago
      Arizona requires drivers to "exercise due care to avoid colliding with a pedestrian". If a fatality results, but due care was taken by the driver to avoid it, then the tragic accident is just that, an accident. Like my comment says, let's wait until we have facts before passing judgement.
      - bluetwo 9y ago
        Sure, we don't know many of the details. But from this distance, things don't look good for the technology or the future of autonomous trials on public roads. The evidence that due care was not taken will pretty much be the existence of the fatality. There surely will be video, from the car itself and also perhaps third party security or traffic cameras. The level of carelessness we are going to have to see in order for a jury to blame the victim will be pretty high.
        birdmanjeremy 9y ago
        I agree with the final paragraph in your comment. All I'm saying is let's reserve judgement until we know what happened. As for a fatality proving that due care was not taken, I agree. It doesn't tell you who failed to take due care though.
- laythea 9y ago
  Who would the guardian (and therefore responsible) be - the driver or the car manufacturer? Sounds like a circular argument to me!
  - gowld 9y ago
    In this case, the driver is an Uber employee, and the automation is Uber-created and deployed, so the driver is the car manufacturer.
will_brown 9y ago
Likely the more apt word is liable. In law you split that into criminal and civil. Very unlikely there will be any criminal charge, hence no criminal liability but it’s possible. Civil liability is more interesting, but if the deceased’s estate brings suit it opens up a can of worms in the discovery process. Every internal communication, prior incident, etc... At the end of the day it’s not much different than any other vehicular fatality case, but there will be a defective product component (again nothing unheard of in the case of vehicular fatalities). At the end of the day the car will be insured for accidents, so we will probably learn more about the insurance coverage for self-driving cars.
- drb91 9y ago
  Corporate manslaughter is still criminal.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

pishpash 9y ago

Obviously Uber in this case, but as mentioned in response to a separate article, AI's must be like pets or children and have a liable guardian.

birdmanjeremy 9y ago
Not obviously. Let's wait to judge until we have the facts. The pedestrian was outside of the crosswalk. There's not a whole lot of information about the events that lead up to the accident. It is possible that a pedestrian is at fault if they stepped in the way of moving traffic outside of a crosswalk. It's also possible Uber's cars are not up to the task of driving on public roadways.
- bluetwo 9y ago
  The penalty for walking outside a crosswalk is not death.
  - birdmanjeremy 9y ago
    Arizona requires drivers to "exercise due care to avoid colliding with a pedestrian". If a fatality results, but due care was taken by the driver to avoid it, then the tragic accident is just that, an accident. Like my comment says, let's wait until we have facts before passing judgement.
    - bluetwo 9y ago
      Sure, we don't know many of the details. But from this distance, things don't look good for the technology or the future of autonomous trials on public roads. The evidence that due care was not taken will pretty much be the existence of the fatality. There surely will be video, from the car itself and also perhaps third party security or traffic cameras. The level of carelessness we are going to have to see in order for a jury to blame the victim will be pretty high.
      - birdmanjeremy 9y ago
        I agree with the final paragraph in your comment. All I'm saying is let's reserve judgement until we know what happened. As for a fatality proving that due care was not taken, I agree. It doesn't tell you who failed to take due care though.
laythea 9y ago
Who would the guardian (and therefore responsible) be - the driver or the car manufacturer? Sounds like a circular argument to me!
- gowld 9y ago
  In this case, the driver is an Uber employee, and the automation is Uber-created and deployed, so the driver is the car manufacturer.

will_brown 9y ago

Likely the more apt word is liable. In law you split that into criminal and civil. Very unlikely there will be any criminal charge, hence no criminal liability but it’s possible. Civil liability is more interesting, but if the deceased’s estate brings suit it opens up a can of worms in the discovery process. Every internal communication, prior incident, etc... At the end of the day it’s not much different than any other vehicular fatality case, but there will be a defective product component (again nothing unheard of in the case of vehicular fatalities). At the end of the day the car will be insured for accidents, so we will probably learn more about the insurance coverage for self-driving cars.

drb91 9y ago
Corporate manslaughter is still criminal.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]