3 ms·

Here, I'm using "driver" as a proxy for Uber as the entity controlling the car, not the person sitting in the driver's seat, who was apparently reading. Sorry f

by rsj_hn 8y ago

Here, I'm using "driver" as a proxy for Uber as the entity controlling the car, not the person sitting in the driver's seat, who was apparently reading. Sorry for the ambiguity. E.g. if a human was driving the car and the car did the exact same thing, as the Uber car did, but it was broad daylight, then they still most likely would not be charged. If you jaywalk and get killed, it's basically your fault, and the only exception would be if the driver was drunk, or speeding, or not obeying traffic signs, etc. Jaywalkers don't have the right of way, and cars are not obligated to yield to pedestrians who don't have the right of way.

atoav 8y ago
In Germany you have to stop when you see somebody on the street, independent of their right to be there in the first place and independend of the fact how many laws they are breaking with it. You have to stop unless say, it is impossible for you to do so because they were jumping on the street suddenly or it is plausible that you didn’t see them. This is because a persons right to be alive outweighs your right of way at any time and it is none of your business whether that other person acts lawful or not. Interesting to see how much this general principles differ.
- rsj_hn 8y ago
  I think we all agree that there is a moral imperative to stop. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the law should try to perfectly reflect that moral imperative. Laws generally don't work well when they attempt a high resolution of morality, because the law can only approximate justice, and the more complex the approximation, the more arbitrary and ambiguous the law becomes, which is itself unjust. The specific problem here is who decides whether the driver did "enough"? The driver can say "If I tried to slam on the brakes, I was afraid my car would spin out of control" or "If I tried to swerve away, I was afraid I might collide with someone". They might say "I thought there was a car behind me, and if I hit the brakes, I would injure that person. It was an honest mistake that the car which used to be behind was no longer there." Etc. Then you have to decide whether you believe them. In an environment where someone is innocent and must be proven guilty, you don't get a whole lot more precision by adding more precision to the law. Or do you drop the requirement of presumption of innocence? Also, that leaves a lot of discretion to the prosecutor, which may be abused, or imposed arbitrarily, and is ambiguous. So you are creating a lot of ambiguity in the law in an effort to precisely match the moral outcome. The other option is to have clear responsibilities. The pedestrian must do X. The driver must do Y. If the driver does Y, he is not charged. When both X and Y are followed, there can be no accident. But "Must do all you can" is not clearly defined. "Not speeding, obeying traffic signs" -- this is more clearly defined. So in AZ, the law is a little more clear, but at the expense of not being as morally precise. It's a reasonable trade off. It may suffer from an abstract moral critique, but I'm not sure on balance it delivers less justice.
  - purple_ducks 8y ago
    I thought it would have been a much simpler case of "Driving without due care and attention" of which both Uber and the human driver were guilty of.
    - rsj_hn 8y ago
      But you need to define "due care". I gave a summary of the AZ definition of the due care that applied to both drivers and pedestrians. E.g. pedestrian has to make sure to cross at cross walks, driver has to obey traffic signs and yield to those with right of way, etc. If you use a circular definition of "due care" and make it something like "due care means you must take all action that is reasonable to avoid an accident" you've again ducked the issue of giving due care a well defined meaning.
  - craigsmansion 8y ago
    > But that doesn't necessarily mean that the law should try to perfectly reflect that moral imperative. Indeed, which is why such laws should and are aimed at road safety. > the more arbitrary and ambiguous the law becomes "When you hit a pedestrian with a car, you're in the wrong", it doesn't become more unambiguous than that. > do you drop the requirement of presumption of innocence? That's framing the debate. If you hit someone with your car, you're guilty of hitting someone with your car. There is no "presumption of innocence". > So you are creating a lot of ambiguity in the law in an effort to precisely match the moral outcome. No. No ambiguity, and no matching moral outcomes, but improving road safety. > in AZ, the law is a little more clear, but at the expense of not being as morally precise. But it's not more clear, and moral precision in not a goal. > It's a reasonable trade off. Here I should draw up the statistics of accidents involving cars and pedestrians in Arizona and Germany, but I don't think that's necessary. > It may suffer from an abstract moral critique, > but I'm not sure on balance it delivers less justice. That's just an incredibly U.S. centered point of view. I don't mind but your parent was talking about the German system. Maybe AZ works in comparison to the laws in other states with a very car-centered way-of-life, but in comparison to Germany it's really just bat-shit insane if the goal is improving road safety, but granted, that might not be the case.
- eru 8y ago
  Yeah, Arizona law seems to put drivers über alles.
- AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
  I'm sure in pretty much any country a driver is supposed to break if there's a chance of collision. But consider the following situation: An Average Joe drives down the road. Suddenly out of nowhere a pedestrian appears. Joe hits the brakes, but too late, the poor guy is killed. He just didn't have time to react. There's no Joe's fault, unless it can be shown that he saw the pedestrian, could stop, but deliberately decided to teach him a lesson. Now if exactly the same thing happened on a crosswalk, a driver would be at fault. A crosswalk, by design, is a place where pedestrian are crossing. In this case the driver should have expected a person appearing on the road and be prepared to stop. Unless it can be proven that a pedestrian has done something nasty, like jumped on the car from a tree.

by rsj_hn 8y ago

atoav 8y ago

In Germany you have to stop when you see somebody on the street, independent of their right to be there in the first place and independend of the fact how many laws they are breaking with it. You have to stop unless say, it is impossible for you to do so because they were jumping on the street suddenly or it is plausible that you didn’t see them. This is because a persons right to be alive outweighs your right of way at any time and it is none of your business whether that other person acts lawful or not. Interesting to see how much this general principles differ.

rsj_hn 8y ago
I think we all agree that there is a moral imperative to stop. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the law should try to perfectly reflect that moral imperative. Laws generally don't work well when they attempt a high resolution of morality, because the law can only approximate justice, and the more complex the approximation, the more arbitrary and ambiguous the law becomes, which is itself unjust. The specific problem here is who decides whether the driver did "enough"? The driver can say "If I tried to slam on the brakes, I was afraid my car would spin out of control" or "If I tried to swerve away, I was afraid I might collide with someone". They might say "I thought there was a car behind me, and if I hit the brakes, I would injure that person. It was an honest mistake that the car which used to be behind was no longer there." Etc. Then you have to decide whether you believe them. In an environment where someone is innocent and must be proven guilty, you don't get a whole lot more precision by adding more precision to the law. Or do you drop the requirement of presumption of innocence? Also, that leaves a lot of discretion to the prosecutor, which may be abused, or imposed arbitrarily, and is ambiguous. So you are creating a lot of ambiguity in the law in an effort to precisely match the moral outcome. The other option is to have clear responsibilities. The pedestrian must do X. The driver must do Y. If the driver does Y, he is not charged. When both X and Y are followed, there can be no accident. But "Must do all you can" is not clearly defined. "Not speeding, obeying traffic signs" -- this is more clearly defined. So in AZ, the law is a little more clear, but at the expense of not being as morally precise. It's a reasonable trade off. It may suffer from an abstract moral critique, but I'm not sure on balance it delivers less justice.
- purple_ducks 8y ago
  I thought it would have been a much simpler case of "Driving without due care and attention" of which both Uber and the human driver were guilty of.
  - rsj_hn 8y ago
    But you need to define "due care". I gave a summary of the AZ definition of the due care that applied to both drivers and pedestrians. E.g. pedestrian has to make sure to cross at cross walks, driver has to obey traffic signs and yield to those with right of way, etc. If you use a circular definition of "due care" and make it something like "due care means you must take all action that is reasonable to avoid an accident" you've again ducked the issue of giving due care a well defined meaning.
- craigsmansion 8y ago
  > But that doesn't necessarily mean that the law should try to perfectly reflect that moral imperative. Indeed, which is why such laws should and are aimed at road safety. > the more arbitrary and ambiguous the law becomes "When you hit a pedestrian with a car, you're in the wrong", it doesn't become more unambiguous than that. > do you drop the requirement of presumption of innocence? That's framing the debate. If you hit someone with your car, you're guilty of hitting someone with your car. There is no "presumption of innocence". > So you are creating a lot of ambiguity in the law in an effort to precisely match the moral outcome. No. No ambiguity, and no matching moral outcomes, but improving road safety. > in AZ, the law is a little more clear, but at the expense of not being as morally precise. But it's not more clear, and moral precision in not a goal. > It's a reasonable trade off. Here I should draw up the statistics of accidents involving cars and pedestrians in Arizona and Germany, but I don't think that's necessary. > It may suffer from an abstract moral critique, > but I'm not sure on balance it delivers less justice. That's just an incredibly U.S. centered point of view. I don't mind but your parent was talking about the German system. Maybe AZ works in comparison to the laws in other states with a very car-centered way-of-life, but in comparison to Germany it's really just bat-shit insane if the goal is improving road safety, but granted, that might not be the case.
eru 8y ago
Yeah, Arizona law seems to put drivers über alles.
AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
I'm sure in pretty much any country a driver is supposed to break if there's a chance of collision. But consider the following situation: An Average Joe drives down the road. Suddenly out of nowhere a pedestrian appears. Joe hits the brakes, but too late, the poor guy is killed. He just didn't have time to react. There's no Joe's fault, unless it can be shown that he saw the pedestrian, could stop, but deliberately decided to teach him a lesson. Now if exactly the same thing happened on a crosswalk, a driver would be at fault. A crosswalk, by design, is a place where pedestrian are crossing. In this case the driver should have expected a person appearing on the road and be prepared to stop. Unless it can be proven that a pedestrian has done something nasty, like jumped on the car from a tree.