3 ms·

depends what she was told by the company I guess... and if he situation was avoidable at all

by vaccinator 6y ago

baddox 6y ago
That is, presumably, something that the grand jury considered.
- vmception 6y ago
  mmm yeah with their expert witness that can make up stuff on the spot lets just acknowledge inefficiencies in the system
  - kortilla 6y ago
    So you’re positing that the expert witness committed perjury and that Uber secretly told the driver that it was okay for her not to pay attention to what the car was doing?
    - vmception 6y ago
      Miscarriage of justice possible, perjury not necessarily. I don't even know if an expert witness was there, thats how grand juries work. And that a corporation didn't tell a full truth and threw an "maybe employee" under the bus? Not really that much to "posit". Ironically also trending on HN at time of writing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24488350 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24488350
      - brokenmachine 6y ago
        I thought it was very interesting that the police chief came out immediately blaming the pedestrian and saying the crash was unavoidable. When I saw the dashcam footage, I just thought to myself, I probably would have avoided that, had I been driving. I've watched my own dashcam footage before and people on the periphery come out less visible than in reality because the headlights blow out the video - the camera has less dynamic range than our eyes.
  - baddox 6y ago
    I acknowledge inefficiencies in the system but I also suspect that grand juries usually consider the most basic relevant facts of the case.
    - vmception 6y ago
      Grand juries consider the local laws as worded and the instructions they are given by the state which can be plain wrong, it is inherently imbalanced and is a common area of review when looking at miscarriages of justice. Also trending on HN today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24488350 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24488350
- vaccinator 6y ago
  maybe she had an attorney chosen by Uber?
  - kortilla 6y ago
    She can choose her own attorney.
    - vaccinator 6y ago
      but did she...maybe Uber said.. here, take this free attorney
      - kayfox 6y ago
        Its unethical for a lawyer to do things not in their client's best interests, and even if Uber is paying for the lawyer, their client is who they are representing.
        bigiain 6y ago
        And _surely_ Uber would never do or encourage anything unethical. Oh, right...
        kayfox 6y ago
        Ethics violations are a big deal for attorneys, if a complaint is sustained against them with the bar association, they can loose their ability to practice law.
        mindslight 6y ago
        In theory, yes. In practice an attorney has to be intelligent enough to recognize the conflict of interest, and many of them aren't.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
It doesn't matter what she was told. She was in charge of the vehicle. She was the licensed operator. The presence of a broken ML autosteer doesn't abdicate responsibility. This is part of the general attitude that rights and freedoms don't matter if a machine violates them. When you walk out of a store post purchase and the security alarm goes off you have zero obligation to disclose what is now your property to the loss prevention experts. But somehow it's acceptable to assume you're a criminal because a machine said so.
- mindslight 6y ago
  > This is part of the general attitude that rights and freedoms don't matter if a machine violates them. When you walk out of a store post purchase and the security alarm goes off you have zero obligation to disclose what is now your property to the loss prevention experts. But somehow it's acceptable to assume you're a criminal because a machine said so. IMO this is much more applicable to Uber's share of the responsibility for this incident.
  - brokenmachine 6y ago
    Can you explain this further? How does that example equate to uber's responsibility?
- rhino369 6y ago
  Intent matters. The state has to provide criminal negligence, which in most states requires very risky behavior. Driving while watching a video certainly qualifies normally, but purely hypothetically, if Uber had internally said it was totally safe to drive distracted, then maybe she has a defense.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Intent matters. Only to a crime whose required mental state is intent, which rules out crimes of negligent or recklessness (or strict liability, for that matter.) > The state has to provide criminal negligence, which in most states requires very risky behavior. “A motorist can be convicted of negligent homicide for causing the death of another person while driving in a criminally negligent manner. A person acts with criminal negligence by unknowingly doing or failing to do something that creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk to others. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would use in like circumstances.” https://www.drivinglaws.org/resources/arizonas-vehicular-homicide-and-manslaughter-laws-and-penaltie https://www.drivinglaws.org/resources/arizonas-vehicular-hom... I don't think that that's a hard fit for the publicly-reported facts of this case. > Driving while watching a video certainly qualifies normally, but purely hypothetically, if Uber had internally said it was totally safe to drive distracted, then maybe she has a defense. No, if “Uber” said that there is an even greater case than there already is under simple respondeat superior for the actions of the driver alone as agent of the firm for Uber to be charged with negligent homicide, manslaughter, or even 2nd degree murder. But I don't think any representation by Uber could reduce the standard of care owed by a safety driver to members of the public to something below “not watching a video on the phone while supervising the safety of the operation of a self-driving vehicle”.

depends what she was told by the company I guess... and if he situation was avoidable at all

baddox 6y ago

That is, presumably, something that the grand jury considered.

vmception 6y ago
mmm yeah with their expert witness that can make up stuff on the spot lets just acknowledge inefficiencies in the system
- kortilla 6y ago
  So you’re positing that the expert witness committed perjury and that Uber secretly told the driver that it was okay for her not to pay attention to what the car was doing?
  - vmception 6y ago
    Miscarriage of justice possible, perjury not necessarily. I don't even know if an expert witness was there, thats how grand juries work. And that a corporation didn't tell a full truth and threw an "maybe employee" under the bus? Not really that much to "posit". Ironically also trending on HN at time of writing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24488350 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24488350
    - brokenmachine 6y ago
      I thought it was very interesting that the police chief came out immediately blaming the pedestrian and saying the crash was unavoidable. When I saw the dashcam footage, I just thought to myself, I probably would have avoided that, had I been driving. I've watched my own dashcam footage before and people on the periphery come out less visible than in reality because the headlights blow out the video - the camera has less dynamic range than our eyes.
- baddox 6y ago
  I acknowledge inefficiencies in the system but I also suspect that grand juries usually consider the most basic relevant facts of the case.
  - vmception 6y ago
    Grand juries consider the local laws as worded and the instructions they are given by the state which can be plain wrong, it is inherently imbalanced and is a common area of review when looking at miscarriages of justice. Also trending on HN today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24488350 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24488350
vaccinator 6y ago
maybe she had an attorney chosen by Uber?
- kortilla 6y ago
  She can choose her own attorney.
  - vaccinator 6y ago
    but did she...maybe Uber said.. here, take this free attorney
    - kayfox 6y ago
      Its unethical for a lawyer to do things not in their client's best interests, and even if Uber is paying for the lawyer, their client is who they are representing.
      - bigiain 6y ago
        And _surely_ Uber would never do or encourage anything unethical. Oh, right...
        kayfox 6y ago
        Ethics violations are a big deal for attorneys, if a complaint is sustained against them with the bar association, they can loose their ability to practice law.
        mindslight 6y ago
        In theory, yes. In practice an attorney has to be intelligent enough to recognize the conflict of interest, and many of them aren't.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

kevin_thibedeau 6y ago

It doesn't matter what she was told. She was in charge of the vehicle. She was the licensed operator. The presence of a broken ML autosteer doesn't abdicate responsibility. This is part of the general attitude that rights and freedoms don't matter if a machine violates them. When you walk out of a store post purchase and the security alarm goes off you have zero obligation to disclose what is now your property to the loss prevention experts. But somehow it's acceptable to assume you're a criminal because a machine said so.

mindslight 6y ago
> This is part of the general attitude that rights and freedoms don't matter if a machine violates them. When you walk out of a store post purchase and the security alarm goes off you have zero obligation to disclose what is now your property to the loss prevention experts. But somehow it's acceptable to assume you're a criminal because a machine said so. IMO this is much more applicable to Uber's share of the responsibility for this incident.
- brokenmachine 6y ago
  Can you explain this further? How does that example equate to uber's responsibility?
rhino369 6y ago
Intent matters. The state has to provide criminal negligence, which in most states requires very risky behavior. Driving while watching a video certainly qualifies normally, but purely hypothetically, if Uber had internally said it was totally safe to drive distracted, then maybe she has a defense.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Intent matters. Only to a crime whose required mental state is intent, which rules out crimes of negligent or recklessness (or strict liability, for that matter.) > The state has to provide criminal negligence, which in most states requires very risky behavior. “A motorist can be convicted of negligent homicide for causing the death of another person while driving in a criminally negligent manner. A person acts with criminal negligence by unknowingly doing or failing to do something that creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk to others. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would use in like circumstances.” https://www.drivinglaws.org/resources/arizonas-vehicular-homicide-and-manslaughter-laws-and-penaltie https://www.drivinglaws.org/resources/arizonas-vehicular-hom... I don't think that that's a hard fit for the publicly-reported facts of this case. > Driving while watching a video certainly qualifies normally, but purely hypothetically, if Uber had internally said it was totally safe to drive distracted, then maybe she has a defense. No, if “Uber” said that there is an even greater case than there already is under simple respondeat superior for the actions of the driver alone as agent of the firm for Uber to be charged with negligent homicide, manslaughter, or even 2nd degree murder. But I don't think any representation by Uber could reduce the standard of care owed by a safety driver to members of the public to something below “not watching a video on the phone while supervising the safety of the operation of a self-driving vehicle”.