6 ms·

Why manslaughter though? Wasn't the victim the real offender, crossing a road on unmarked spot without paying attention to oncoming traffic? It's a safety failu

by bitL 8y ago

Why manslaughter though? Wasn't the victim the real offender, crossing a road on unmarked spot without paying attention to oncoming traffic? It's a safety failure of a self-driving car tech surely, but the offense came from the victim. Especially given how some human drivers can't avoid similar situations either (see some videos of Chinese driving)...

soziawa 8y ago
As driver of the car you need to be able to stop the car at any time for any reason, otherwise you're not in control of your vehicle. By not being in control of your vehicle you accepted the fact that you might seriously harm someone. This is why it's manslaughter.
bkor 8y ago
> Wasn't the victim the real offender, crossing a road on unmarked spot without paying attention to oncoming traffic? If someone makes a mistake while in traffic I'm much more happy do not immediately die as a result. There's been a few instances such a thing could've happened to me.
carlmr 8y ago
An attentive driver could have at the very least mitigated what happened. Maybe even slowed down enough in order to not cause lethal harm. As a driver you're sent to driving school and you're operating a 2 ton death machine. If you're not in control of your vehicle for whatever reason (alcohol, drugs, phone) you're already at fault, even when you're not the only person to blame (Uber, the driver and the cyclist).
- bitL 8y ago
  Many drivers get into a state of shock when SHTF, i.e. they are going into an accident and suddenly are paralyzed or doing some boneheaded moves (like bikers turning more which has the opposite effect). You can see it on many videos from China when drivers just can't believe what has just happened and continue, likely in a state of a deep shock. Or when you are face-to-face with a deer on the road, lot of space on each side but you still hit the deer because you were mesmerized by it. You should always predict what could happen even if you are a pedestrian or a biker (oh, cars surely won't open doors while I am on a bike path, right?). Casually strolling through a road with traffic without caring about approaching cars is simply irresponsible. Ofc Uber driver was distracted, it was clear from the video. But I would put 80% blame on the victim.
  - CaptainZapp 8y ago
    "Ofc Uber driver was distracted, it was clear from the video. But I would put 80% blame on the victim." For what it's worth I didn't downvote you, but think you're completely wrong. When I cross a road and see a car approaching it's not unreasonable to believe that the driver reacts. Especially at a well lit place (which apparently it is and for which the video gives a very wrong impression). In my book the company as well as the "safety driver" who's aparently so stupid that she watches TV when her responsibility is to supervise a deadly machine are criminally culpable and if I had any say she, as well as the responsible head of Uber's "self driving" unit should go to jail for that.
amelius 8y ago
It's pretty normal behavior to rely on other participants (here cars) to use their eyes and common sense. Even in cases where e.g. crossing the road is not allowed.
polski-g 8y ago
Manslaughter should fault of the Uber programmers
- JosephRedfern 8y ago
  A backup driver should be just that -- someone there to take over in case of software/hardware error. Such a driver was deemed necessary, failed to do their job, resulting in the crash. If the system was supposed to be entirely driverless and autonomous, then sure -- perhaps more blame would lie with those in charge of whatever kind of "certification" procedures take place (rather than the developers). But IMO, in this instance the blame lies with the backup driver, and Uber for not enforcing more training or monitoring of the backup driver to prevent this kind of horrendous incident from happening in the first place.
  - scblock 8y ago
    There was no software or hardware error. It didn't break, it worked exactly as it was programmed. Which is the problem, and one of the many reasons Uber is at fault.
    - JosephRedfern 8y ago
      I don't want to argue over the semantics of this being a software or hardware error. Clearly the car didn't perform as intended. A vast majority of software issues occur even though they are functioning "as programmed", it doesn't mean that they aren't bugs. I'm not saying Uber aren't at fault -- an Uber employee failed to do their job by watching TV instead of concentrating on the road, and Uber failed to do sufficient training/screening or failed to put enough safeguards in place to stop this from happening. My point is that they KNEW that the automated system side of things wasn't perfect which is why they employed someone to look after the car in the first place. Yes, the car failed to stop react to the pedestrian -- but the safeguard (i.e. the human in the car) failed to do their job, which was to step in under such circumstances.
- mannykannot 8y ago
  The driver was responsible for the car, and carries most of the responsibility for this accident. There may be grounds for a civil, or even criminal, action against Uber on the basis of creating a dangerous situation, but that would be a bad executive decision, not a programming error.
ollie87 8y ago
Maybe it's different where you live, but where I live the only place where a pedestrian doesn't have right of way is a motorway.
- icebraining 8y ago
  Unfortunately, it seems it's not the case in Arizona: "Pedestrians must yield the right-of-way to vehicles when crossing outside of a marked crosswalk or an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection." http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/pedestrian-crossing-50-state-summary.aspx http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/pedestrian-cross...
  - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
    It is also almost always the law that drivers must take any reasonable actions possible to avoid an accident even if someone else broke the law in a way that makes an accident more likely. So even if the pedestrian did fail to yield right-of-way, the driver is still required to stop to prevent an accident if they are able to.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  One of the most jarring things about visiting Niagara Falls in Ontario was a big sign at the crosswalk warning that vehicles, rather than pedestrians, have the right of way. I don't see any good justification for making things this way except to basically give a free pass to anyone who kills a pedestrian.
  - wilsonnb2 8y ago
    It's always made perfect sense to me that vehicles should have right of way on roads. They're intended for vehicles. Giving pedestrians the right of way on the road makes about as much sense as giving cars the right of way on the sidewalk.
    - emodendroket 8y ago
pjc50 8y ago
> Wasn't the victim the real offender, No. How can you write something like this without thinking realising what you're saying?
- bitL 8y ago
  Why do you think I didn't think when I wrote it? You can't expect to start crossing the road with approaching cars, hoping they would accommodate you instantly. What if a driver sneezed while you are doing it, unable to react for a second or two or there was some sudden mechanical or other failure? Friend of mine was driving 55mph when an older man suddenly decided to quickly cross the road and he couldn't avoid hitting him, so he is now scarred for life from terminating somebody else's life and seeing it all realtime. It's obvious the Uber driver didn't pay attention, that however doesn't absolve the victim from being the primary offender. Think about it before you go emotional.
  - tom_ 8y ago
    You're the one coming up with outlandish scenarios in response to a simple suggestion that failure to yield shouldn't be a death sentence. Who's getting emotional?
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    I'm sorry to hear about your friend but it's not quite the same situation if the driver had six seconds to react.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    The point is that it's ridiculous to think of crossing the road as an offence against the driver, when it turns out so badly for the victim. It's more of a tragic error.
    - malandrew 8y ago
      What if the driver had seen the pedestrian and swerved, flipped the car and died? Would that be an offense against the driver? The only reason we consider the pedestrian to be the victim here is because in this specific instance, that is who died, but there are no lack of cases where a driver tries to avoid a collision and ends up dying as a result.
emodendroket 8y ago
Well, to answer your question, no, the victim is not "the real offender." Some states (I don't know about AZ) recognize a "comparative negligence" standard where one party may be partially at fault but the other is majority at-fault and adjudicate civil judgments accordingly; others are all-or-nothing. This is a criminal case, so that doesn't enter into the equation, but I think it's a useful way of thinking about it. It may be that the pedestrian could have been more careful and not have been killed, but the operator of the vehicle failed to exercise a bare minimum level of care and is the more culpable party.

by bitL 8y ago

soziawa 8y ago

As driver of the car you need to be able to stop the car at any time for any reason, otherwise you're not in control of your vehicle. By not being in control of your vehicle you accepted the fact that you might seriously harm someone. This is why it's manslaughter.

bkor 8y ago

> Wasn't the victim the real offender, crossing a road on unmarked spot without paying attention to oncoming traffic? If someone makes a mistake while in traffic I'm much more happy do not immediately die as a result. There's been a few instances such a thing could've happened to me.

carlmr 8y ago

An attentive driver could have at the very least mitigated what happened. Maybe even slowed down enough in order to not cause lethal harm. As a driver you're sent to driving school and you're operating a 2 ton death machine. If you're not in control of your vehicle for whatever reason (alcohol, drugs, phone) you're already at fault, even when you're not the only person to blame (Uber, the driver and the cyclist).

bitL 8y ago
Many drivers get into a state of shock when SHTF, i.e. they are going into an accident and suddenly are paralyzed or doing some boneheaded moves (like bikers turning more which has the opposite effect). You can see it on many videos from China when drivers just can't believe what has just happened and continue, likely in a state of a deep shock. Or when you are face-to-face with a deer on the road, lot of space on each side but you still hit the deer because you were mesmerized by it. You should always predict what could happen even if you are a pedestrian or a biker (oh, cars surely won't open doors while I am on a bike path, right?). Casually strolling through a road with traffic without caring about approaching cars is simply irresponsible. Ofc Uber driver was distracted, it was clear from the video. But I would put 80% blame on the victim.
- CaptainZapp 8y ago
  "Ofc Uber driver was distracted, it was clear from the video. But I would put 80% blame on the victim." For what it's worth I didn't downvote you, but think you're completely wrong. When I cross a road and see a car approaching it's not unreasonable to believe that the driver reacts. Especially at a well lit place (which apparently it is and for which the video gives a very wrong impression). In my book the company as well as the "safety driver" who's aparently so stupid that she watches TV when her responsibility is to supervise a deadly machine are criminally culpable and if I had any say she, as well as the responsible head of Uber's "self driving" unit should go to jail for that.

amelius 8y ago

It's pretty normal behavior to rely on other participants (here cars) to use their eyes and common sense. Even in cases where e.g. crossing the road is not allowed.

polski-g 8y ago

Manslaughter should fault of the Uber programmers

JosephRedfern 8y ago
A backup driver should be just that -- someone there to take over in case of software/hardware error. Such a driver was deemed necessary, failed to do their job, resulting in the crash. If the system was supposed to be entirely driverless and autonomous, then sure -- perhaps more blame would lie with those in charge of whatever kind of "certification" procedures take place (rather than the developers). But IMO, in this instance the blame lies with the backup driver, and Uber for not enforcing more training or monitoring of the backup driver to prevent this kind of horrendous incident from happening in the first place.
- scblock 8y ago
  There was no software or hardware error. It didn't break, it worked exactly as it was programmed. Which is the problem, and one of the many reasons Uber is at fault.
  - JosephRedfern 8y ago
    I don't want to argue over the semantics of this being a software or hardware error. Clearly the car didn't perform as intended. A vast majority of software issues occur even though they are functioning "as programmed", it doesn't mean that they aren't bugs. I'm not saying Uber aren't at fault -- an Uber employee failed to do their job by watching TV instead of concentrating on the road, and Uber failed to do sufficient training/screening or failed to put enough safeguards in place to stop this from happening. My point is that they KNEW that the automated system side of things wasn't perfect which is why they employed someone to look after the car in the first place. Yes, the car failed to stop react to the pedestrian -- but the safeguard (i.e. the human in the car) failed to do their job, which was to step in under such circumstances.
mannykannot 8y ago
The driver was responsible for the car, and carries most of the responsibility for this accident. There may be grounds for a civil, or even criminal, action against Uber on the basis of creating a dangerous situation, but that would be a bad executive decision, not a programming error.

ollie87 8y ago

Maybe it's different where you live, but where I live the only place where a pedestrian doesn't have right of way is a motorway.

icebraining 8y ago
Unfortunately, it seems it's not the case in Arizona: "Pedestrians must yield the right-of-way to vehicles when crossing outside of a marked crosswalk or an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection." http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/pedestrian-crossing-50-state-summary.aspx http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/pedestrian-cross...
- TheCoelacanth 8y ago
  It is also almost always the law that drivers must take any reasonable actions possible to avoid an accident even if someone else broke the law in a way that makes an accident more likely. So even if the pedestrian did fail to yield right-of-way, the driver is still required to stop to prevent an accident if they are able to.
emodendroket 8y ago
One of the most jarring things about visiting Niagara Falls in Ontario was a big sign at the crosswalk warning that vehicles, rather than pedestrians, have the right of way. I don't see any good justification for making things this way except to basically give a free pass to anyone who kills a pedestrian.
- wilsonnb2 8y ago
  It's always made perfect sense to me that vehicles should have right of way on roads. They're intended for vehicles. Giving pedestrians the right of way on the road makes about as much sense as giving cars the right of way on the sidewalk.
  - emodendroket 8y ago

pjc50 8y ago

> Wasn't the victim the real offender, No. How can you write something like this without thinking realising what you're saying?

bitL 8y ago
Why do you think I didn't think when I wrote it? You can't expect to start crossing the road with approaching cars, hoping they would accommodate you instantly. What if a driver sneezed while you are doing it, unable to react for a second or two or there was some sudden mechanical or other failure? Friend of mine was driving 55mph when an older man suddenly decided to quickly cross the road and he couldn't avoid hitting him, so he is now scarred for life from terminating somebody else's life and seeing it all realtime. It's obvious the Uber driver didn't pay attention, that however doesn't absolve the victim from being the primary offender. Think about it before you go emotional.
- tom_ 8y ago
  You're the one coming up with outlandish scenarios in response to a simple suggestion that failure to yield shouldn't be a death sentence. Who's getting emotional?
- emodendroket 8y ago
  I'm sorry to hear about your friend but it's not quite the same situation if the driver had six seconds to react.
- pjc50 8y ago
  The point is that it's ridiculous to think of crossing the road as an offence against the driver, when it turns out so badly for the victim. It's more of a tragic error.
  - malandrew 8y ago
    What if the driver had seen the pedestrian and swerved, flipped the car and died? Would that be an offense against the driver? The only reason we consider the pedestrian to be the victim here is because in this specific instance, that is who died, but there are no lack of cases where a driver tries to avoid a collision and ends up dying as a result.

emodendroket 8y ago

Well, to answer your question, no, the victim is not "the real offender." Some states (I don't know about AZ) recognize a "comparative negligence" standard where one party may be partially at fault but the other is majority at-fault and adjudicate civil judgments accordingly; others are all-or-nothing. This is a criminal case, so that doesn't enter into the equation, but I think it's a useful way of thinking about it. It may be that the pedestrian could have been more careful and not have been killed, but the operator of the vehicle failed to exercise a bare minimum level of care and is the more culpable party.