4 ms·
> While the system identified that an emergency braking maneuver was needed to mitigate a collision, the system was set up to not activate emergency braking whe
by jimktrains2 8y ago
> While the system identified that an emergency braking maneuver was needed to mitigate a collision, the system was set up to not activate emergency braking when under computer control.
> Instead, the car's system relied on the human operator to intervene as needed. "The system is not designed to alert the operator," the report notes.
How are the not negligent for this specifically?
- henryfjordan 8y agoThe law doesn't require automatic brakes and alerts on cars. Think about how many clunkers those laws would make illegal. You can't hold Uber to different legal standards, but we can certainly say they were negligent from a moral standpoint
- jimktrains2 8y ago> The law doesn't require automatic brakes and alerts on cars. The law isn't written for the case when the car is under its own control. The driver is assumed to be in control of the vehicle. However, if the car is also _a_ driver, neutering its ability stop, or even ask for assistance, in an emergency should be tantamount to disability the human driver's brakes.
- hcurtiss 8y agoA civil suit for negligence is still available, even when not criminally liable. Two different standards. See O.J.
- Rapzid 8y agoIf I had to review criminal negligence and pick a reason I would say that a standard of reasonable care has not been established that requires a car to be configured in a way that would have prevented the accident.