3 ms·
> but it certainly feels like pedestrians should look out for cars when crossing, and drivers should look out for pedestrians. The problem in this case was tha
by umvi 7y ago
> but it certainly feels like pedestrians should look out for cars when crossing, and drivers should look out for pedestrians.
The problem in this case was that the pedestrian was impaired by drugs, if I recall correctly.
In my opinion, this happened because of 3 simultaneous failures: failure of the pedestrian to responsibly cross street, failure of the computer system to recognize the obstacle, failure of the computer babysitter to be on the lookout for obstacles and override the computer.
Hopefully we learn something from this triple failure and take measures to reduce their likelihood in the future.
- andybak 7y ago> The problem in this case was that the pedestrian was impaired by drugs, if I recall correctly. That's overstating it. I think it would be decent under the circumstances to spend 30 seconds Googling it before slandering the victim: Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Elaine_Herzberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Elaine_Herzberg According to the preliminary report of the collision released by the NTSB, Herzberg had tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana in a toxicology test carried out after the collision. Residual toxicology itself does not establish if or when she was under their influence, and hence an actual factor.
- Piskvorrr 7y agoSoooo...it's now okay to run over people (5 seconds is a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON-crash! time), as long as you have an excuse? Go watch the scapecam footage: even with the horrible picture quality, you can see the victim walking (in a straight line across the road, no less!) a very long time before impact. Perhaps you could also argue "if she were wearing a helmet, it would have conferred +1 to CON and perhaps saved her", for what it's worth - makes sense in the crudest of simulations, but not in RL.
- umvi 7y agoOf course not! It's never okay to kill people. But she is at least partially to blame for her own death. If I take a nap on some train tracks and get run over, is my death 100% on the train engineer for not stopping even though I was in plain sight for 30+ seconds?
- Piskvorrr 7y agoYou are taking this into ridiculous extremes. She wasn't taking a nap in the road, and a car is stoppable at a far smaller distance than a train. Your argument boils down to "it's her own fault for existing outside a car, shit happens."
- ulisesrmzroche 7y agoThat’s not even close to jaywalking. Bad example
- SamReidHughes 7y agoWhen I jaywalk (or cross anywhere) I consider it my responsibility to cross safely. If I got hit by a car, it is 100% my fault for not looking. Maybe it is also 100% the driver's fault. Responsibility and blame is not something that has to get divided up such that it adds to 100%. In this case the pedestrian and driver are both fully responsible. The pedestrian was lollygagging across the road like a complete idiot. The driver wasn't paying attention.
- wutbrodo 7y ago> Responsibility and blame is not something that has to get divided up such that it adds to 100%. I think I might agree with something you're trying to say, but this point is completely incoherent.
- SamReidHughes 7y agoI'm not saying responsibility + blame > 100%, if that's what you think I said. Read it as two statements: "Responsibility is not something...," and "Blame is not something..." If doesn't clear things up, I don't know how it could be incoherent.