3 ms·
Interesting reading the article, from a risk perspective I would think Uber would have assessed the risks associated with using an Uber self-driving solution. P
by NoPicklez 8y ago
Interesting reading the article, from a risk perspective I would think Uber would have assessed the risks associated with using an Uber self-driving solution. Particularly mitigating automated controls to stop the car in the event it detects an emergency, given it has this capability.
But I agree with the verdict, it's just strange that the vehicle has the ability to detect a potential collision but cannot apply emergency braking to prevent it.
- mnm1 8y agoOf course, the prosecutor is judge and jury in this case because they are not pressing charges. I'm almost certain uber would be held liable by any jury who heard that they intentionally turned off the braking that could have saved this woman's life. Then again, it is Arizona so it's not surprising that this is not even being prosecuted. Uber must be bringing in a ton of money to the state there to get off so easily.
- jcranmer 8y agoI'm not so sure. Uber's defense here amounts to blaming the safety driver for the crash. They can argue that their actions improved the safety of the self-driving car (by reducing erratic movements due to false positive) so long as the safety driver is performing their job properly. Absent a smoking gun email that says "yep, we know this is unsafe, we don't care" (basically the Ford Pinto scenario), I don't think a guilty verdict is near-certain.