5 ms·

Well, they were still jaywalking in the middle of the night hoping oncoming cars would stop for them. It's not like the car hopped the curb.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
They were crossing a low speed, brightly lit street.
- always_good 9y ago
  It's a gamble that jaywalkers lose every year. When you're going to jaywalk, ensure that the next car is far enough away to where it doesn't matter if they stop. That's the correct way that would've saved this person's life without any further analysis. I'm taking issue with this: >that person died for no good reason beyond Uber rushing tech out the door before it was ready Well, no. They died because they lost their gamble on an unguided crossing where the oncoming car did not stop. We are now analyzing why the car didn't stop, but notice how no charges were pressed.
  - thrownaway954 9y ago
    i agree with you 10,000%. i think everyone is so concerned about why the car didn't stop, they forget that jaywalking or running out into the middle of the road is a gamble always. i wonder... if the person crossing had been behind an obstruction and stepped out right in front of the car, would everyone still blame the car or the driver for hitting the person crossing?
  - wpietri 9y ago
    No charges were filed yet, but that's unlikely to happen until after the NTSB report. It's true that jaywalking is a gamble, but so is crossing a street with the light. Leaving the house is a gamble. That doesn't mean we can blame the victim of a collision for leaving the house. It can be simultaneously true that A) jaywalking is not always a great idea, and B) the Uber car should have avoided this collision.
- jyrkesh 9y ago
  Did you watch the video? I think any decent self-driving tech would've seen her, but I highly contend with OP's assertion that an "alert human" would have stopped in time. The road was very dark, and she came out of nowhere. If the car was speeding, you might be able to make that argument, but I don't think anyone has made that claim yet.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    The video is misrepresentative of the actual road conditions. https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/police-chief-said-uber-victim-came-from-the-shadows-dont-believe-it/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/police-chief-said-uber-...
  - wpietri 9y ago
    Perhaps you would be so kind as to contend with what I actually said. I did not actually say a human would have stopped in time. I said a human would have braked and swerved.
reaperducer 9y ago
In many (all?) states, pedestrians have the right-of-way, even if they're jaywalking.
- dec0dedab0de 9y ago
  Jaywalking means they were walking when they did not have the right of way. However, whether or not a driver is civilly liable for an accident usually doesn't even care about the right of way. For example, if a pedestrian is standing in the middle of the road attempting to block traffic. They have no right to be there, however, it is not ok to run them over.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

They were crossing a low speed, brightly lit street.

always_good 9y ago
It's a gamble that jaywalkers lose every year. When you're going to jaywalk, ensure that the next car is far enough away to where it doesn't matter if they stop. That's the correct way that would've saved this person's life without any further analysis. I'm taking issue with this: >that person died for no good reason beyond Uber rushing tech out the door before it was ready Well, no. They died because they lost their gamble on an unguided crossing where the oncoming car did not stop. We are now analyzing why the car didn't stop, but notice how no charges were pressed.
- thrownaway954 9y ago
  i agree with you 10,000%. i think everyone is so concerned about why the car didn't stop, they forget that jaywalking or running out into the middle of the road is a gamble always. i wonder... if the person crossing had been behind an obstruction and stepped out right in front of the car, would everyone still blame the car or the driver for hitting the person crossing?
- wpietri 9y ago
  No charges were filed yet, but that's unlikely to happen until after the NTSB report. It's true that jaywalking is a gamble, but so is crossing a street with the light. Leaving the house is a gamble. That doesn't mean we can blame the victim of a collision for leaving the house. It can be simultaneously true that A) jaywalking is not always a great idea, and B) the Uber car should have avoided this collision.
jyrkesh 9y ago
Did you watch the video? I think any decent self-driving tech would've seen her, but I highly contend with OP's assertion that an "alert human" would have stopped in time. The road was very dark, and she came out of nowhere. If the car was speeding, you might be able to make that argument, but I don't think anyone has made that claim yet.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  The video is misrepresentative of the actual road conditions. https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/police-chief-said-uber-victim-came-from-the-shadows-dont-believe-it/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/police-chief-said-uber-...
- wpietri 9y ago
  Perhaps you would be so kind as to contend with what I actually said. I did not actually say a human would have stopped in time. I said a human would have braked and swerved.

reaperducer 9y ago

In many (all?) states, pedestrians have the right-of-way, even if they're jaywalking.

dec0dedab0de 9y ago
Jaywalking means they were walking when they did not have the right of way. However, whether or not a driver is civilly liable for an accident usually doesn't even care about the right of way. For example, if a pedestrian is standing in the middle of the road attempting to block traffic. They have no right to be there, however, it is not ok to run them over.