5 ms·

> I hope that the driver isn't the sole focus of punishment As sad as this accident was, I don't see how the driver or Uber is legally at fault. Pedestrians c

> I hope that the driver isn't the sole focus of punishment As sad as this accident was, I don't see how the driver or Uber is legally at fault. Pedestrians crossing outside of a crosswalk are supposed to yield to traffic. The victim in this video is stunningly oblivious to the fact that she's on a roadway. Obviously we want self-driving tech to be good enough to avoid such an accident, particularly since a human probably could have; I'm not arguing otherwise. But legally, the victim was clearly at least partially at fault here. I think one thing this incident is going to do is to point up the limitations of having a human at the wheel, supposedly ready to take over. In a true sudden emergency, after tens of thousands of miles of uneventful riding around, that just isn't going to happen reliably.

WiseWeasel 9y ago
> Pedestrians crossing outside of a crosswalk are supposed to yield to traffic. Pedestrians always have the right-of-way. They might get a ticket for jaywalking in some cities, but it's never permissible to hit someone with your car, regardless of whether they're in a crosswalk. Vehicular manslaughter is no minor infraction, and Uber can expect a civil suit from the victim's family even if there are no criminal charges.
- ScottBurson 9y ago
  I'm sure you're right about the civil suit.
  - DannyBee 9y ago
    They will probably lose in arizona (In My Lawyerly Opinion) but Uber will settle it out anyway. It's not only comparative negligence, you don't have to always yield. In fact, Arizona has a weird set of rules that would make this exact set of events a law school exam style question: Arizona: Vehicles must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians within a crosswalk that are in the same half of the roadway as the vehicle or when a pedestrian is approaching closely enough from the opposite side of the roadway to constitute a danger. Pedestrians may not suddenly leave the curb and enter a crosswalk into the path of a moving vehicle that is so close the vehicle is unable to yield. Pedestrians must yield the right-of-way to vehicles when crossing outside of a marked crosswalk or an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection. Where traffic control devices are in operation, pedestrians may only cross between two adjacent intersections in a marked crosswalk. One saving grace for any plaintiff is that in AZ you can recover 1% damages even if you are 99% at fault.
    - ScottBurson 9y ago
      The wildcard here is that interior video. The safety driver was clearly not paying attention. Although the exterior video seems to exonerate her, everybody knows that even with no bright clothing and in between streetlights, a pedestrian rolling a bicycle wouldn't be that invisible. On the other hand, that pedestrian was astonishingly oblivious, crossing a two-lane roadway with a 45mph speed limit and not even looking for oncoming traffic. If she did that every night for a couple of years, I think her odds of having at least a close call would approach 100%. It will be interesting to see what happens.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- DannyBee 9y ago
  "Pedestrians always have the right-of-way." Just FYI: In the US, this not legally true, and definitely not legally true in a lot of comparative negligence states. While its true you can't just hit people with your car, any civil suit that is filed would be usually lost in most of these states (where lost == you may not recover money). It does vary, some states (like AZ) allow you to recover 1% even if you are 99% at fault. In fact, what you say about right of way is not even true in very pedestrian friendly states like California. In California (and most states), what the person you replied to wrote is correct. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21950.&lawCode=VEH https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... 21950. (a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided in this chapter. (b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk. (c) The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian. (d) Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.
  - WiseWeasel 9y ago
    Who do I sue for my driver's handbook lying to me? : P Thanks for your informative correction, even though it might not be a bad misconception to have. New idea for a band name: Beneficial Misconception
- bendauphinee 9y ago
  Pedestrians do always have the right of way, but they bear a bit of responsibility as well to make sure the driver is aware of them, and not just walk out into the road. I have been on both sides of the wheel here, and it can never be assumed that a car knows a person is there.

WiseWeasel 9y ago

> Pedestrians crossing outside of a crosswalk are supposed to yield to traffic. Pedestrians always have the right-of-way. They might get a ticket for jaywalking in some cities, but it's never permissible to hit someone with your car, regardless of whether they're in a crosswalk. Vehicular manslaughter is no minor infraction, and Uber can expect a civil suit from the victim's family even if there are no criminal charges.

ScottBurson 9y ago
I'm sure you're right about the civil suit.
- DannyBee 9y ago
  They will probably lose in arizona (In My Lawyerly Opinion) but Uber will settle it out anyway. It's not only comparative negligence, you don't have to always yield. In fact, Arizona has a weird set of rules that would make this exact set of events a law school exam style question: Arizona: Vehicles must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians within a crosswalk that are in the same half of the roadway as the vehicle or when a pedestrian is approaching closely enough from the opposite side of the roadway to constitute a danger. Pedestrians may not suddenly leave the curb and enter a crosswalk into the path of a moving vehicle that is so close the vehicle is unable to yield. Pedestrians must yield the right-of-way to vehicles when crossing outside of a marked crosswalk or an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection. Where traffic control devices are in operation, pedestrians may only cross between two adjacent intersections in a marked crosswalk. One saving grace for any plaintiff is that in AZ you can recover 1% damages even if you are 99% at fault.
  - ScottBurson 9y ago
    The wildcard here is that interior video. The safety driver was clearly not paying attention. Although the exterior video seems to exonerate her, everybody knows that even with no bright clothing and in between streetlights, a pedestrian rolling a bicycle wouldn't be that invisible. On the other hand, that pedestrian was astonishingly oblivious, crossing a two-lane roadway with a 45mph speed limit and not even looking for oncoming traffic. If she did that every night for a couple of years, I think her odds of having at least a close call would approach 100%. It will be interesting to see what happens.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
DannyBee 9y ago
"Pedestrians always have the right-of-way." Just FYI: In the US, this not legally true, and definitely not legally true in a lot of comparative negligence states. While its true you can't just hit people with your car, any civil suit that is filed would be usually lost in most of these states (where lost == you may not recover money). It does vary, some states (like AZ) allow you to recover 1% even if you are 99% at fault. In fact, what you say about right of way is not even true in very pedestrian friendly states like California. In California (and most states), what the person you replied to wrote is correct. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21950.&lawCode=VEH https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... 21950. (a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided in this chapter. (b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk. (c) The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian. (d) Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.
- WiseWeasel 9y ago
  Who do I sue for my driver's handbook lying to me? : P Thanks for your informative correction, even though it might not be a bad misconception to have. New idea for a band name: Beneficial Misconception
bendauphinee 9y ago
Pedestrians do always have the right of way, but they bear a bit of responsibility as well to make sure the driver is aware of them, and not just walk out into the road. I have been on both sides of the wheel here, and it can never be assumed that a car knows a person is there.