3 ms·

2. Visibility doesn't even have any relevance in the first-place It has relevance in showing that the pedestrian was failing to exercise their duty of care and

by rsj_hn 8y ago

2. Visibility doesn't even have any relevance in the first-place It has relevance in showing that the pedestrian was failing to exercise their duty of care and was thus at fault. Jaywalking at night wearing a black shirt is pretty negligent. Jaywalking even in the day is negligent in AZ, but at night, across a major artery, it's crazy. Unless you are going to argue that they knew it was a self-driving car, and so thought that the car would see them in the dark. But they apparently didn't even know a car was there, so that's a tough sell. They didn't even look if a car was coming. A lot of people here are having a hard time coming to grips with the fact that a pedestrian has responsibilities and can be at fault in a collision with a car -- e.g. that the pedestrian doesn't automatically have the right of way or a right to be avoided every time they step into a street. I get that this is a tough concept for a lot of people to internalize, but if you're going to be arguing that someone should be charged, then at least the broad outlines of the law in AZ need to be understood.

jfk13 8y ago
I don't think people are arguing that a pedestrian has an absolute "right to be avoided every time they step into a street". But many of us (I think) do believe that a driver -- or an autonomous driving system -- does have some responsibility to take reasonable care to avoid accidents, regardless of who has the right of way. While the concept of right of way may often have a bearing on who is held at fault for an accident, it does not -- or at least should not -- entirely absolve the driver of any responsibility to drive attentively and carefully in all circumstances. In this case, it does sounds to me as though the pedestrian was at fault -- particularly in the context of AZ law -- but it also sounds as though both Uber and the "safety" driver were seriously negligent in their responsibilities, and their negligence was a major contributory factor in the pedestrian's death. They should be held to account.

by rsj_hn 8y ago

jfk13 8y ago

I don't think people are arguing that a pedestrian has an absolute "right to be avoided every time they step into a street". But many of us (I think) do believe that a driver -- or an autonomous driving system -- does have some responsibility to take reasonable care to avoid accidents, regardless of who has the right of way. While the concept of right of way may often have a bearing on who is held at fault for an accident, it does not -- or at least should not -- entirely absolve the driver of any responsibility to drive attentively and carefully in all circumstances. In this case, it does sounds to me as though the pedestrian was at fault -- particularly in the context of AZ law -- but it also sounds as though both Uber and the "safety" driver were seriously negligent in their responsibilities, and their negligence was a major contributory factor in the pedestrian's death. They should be held to account.