4 ms·

The car was speeding before it hit the woman, and the driver was most probably watching TV before/as it happened. I can see how this would be bad press for self

by kag0 6y ago

The car was speeding before it hit the woman, and the driver was most probably watching TV before/as it happened. I can see how this would be bad press for self-driving cars, but this really seems like the error is on the driver. Maybe Uber failed to adequately communicate to her what her role was in the car, but otherwise it seems like pretty open and shut negligence.

fernly 6y ago
The article say the collision happened at 39mph. Was that over the limit for that location? If so, the (design of the) automated car should be partly at fault. Self-drive cars should never exceed a speed limit. The defense attorney can argue that if the car had gone at legal speed for the location, the driver would have had more time to react, while the victim might have survived a slower impact. To which the prosecutor might reply, the safety driver had responsibility to keep the speed legal, along with everything else.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  The speed limit is simply irrelevant from a safety perspective. The number on a sign is just that, a number. Sure you can use it in the absence of all else but it should be tossed if there's any other information to use. Self driving cars should be going as fast as whatever is normal for the rest of the traffic in those conditions and at that time. Creeping along at 55mph in the right line while 75mph traffic dodges you is anything but safe. Safety is achieved through homogeneous traffic flow and in practice that means not having a minority of traffic that's going very fast nor very slow nor a bimodal distribution. Modern civil engineering doctrine is to set the speed limit based on traffic speed and to control the traffic speed with the road design/features so "but the law" holds about as much water as a net if the goal is safety. That said, the court cares about the letter of the law (as it should) so your proposed defense may in fact be beneficial. Edit: Whether I care matters not.
  - darkerside 6y ago
    You may not care, but others do. That makes the anomalous speeding vehicle now difficulty to anticipate for crossing pedestrians.
  - turtle-san 6y ago
    >The speed limit is simply irrelevant from a safety perspective. That depends on the type of road. On an interstate or highway your argument holds, but in urban and suburban areas, where there are side-streets, stop-signs, traffic lights, crosswalks, bicyclist, pedestrians that is not the case. The faster a driver is going the less time they have to respond to new information, this is clear. Also I argue that with most cars going fast, and most cars are not giving the car in front of them enough space, that a car is less likely to slow down when they should (like when passing a bicyclist or making a turn across a crosswalk before they look who is in it or approaching it). I also argue, as does the commenter below me, that anomalous speeding vehicles can be dangerous to anyone that is using/crossing a road using a decision making processes that relies on cars going a certain speed. My experience as a bicyclist on some roads, where there are 4 narrow lanes (2 in each direction), with a 30 mph speed limit but where the cars drive 40-45 mph, is that I can have two cars both pass me at the same time on my left, passing very close, because the car farthest on the right does not slow down and get into the left lane. My experience as a walker has cars turning into my crosswalk at high speeds all the time. Left-hand turns are particularly bad. I would also argue that higher speed limits are more stressful for everyone involved. Not nice for bicyclists, pedestrians, exercisers, scooter riders, people going for a stroll, or sitting outside, or even living next to such a road. Not even nice for other drivers who just want to go the speed limit and not get ran off the road by impatient drivers. For this reason as well, quality of life in urban and suburban areas, do I argue that speed limits matter.
toast0 6y ago
According to wikipedia, the car was traveling at 43 mph when it detected the pedestrian, and street has a posted 45 mph limit. There was no reported inclement weather, heavy traffic, or faulty lighting, so I don't see a reason to suspect traveling just below the speed limit should be considered speeding. Police had released a statement claiming the limit was 35 mph, although that's contradicted by the signs. According to police, 85% of drivers would have identified the pedestrian 5.6 seconds away, and the Uber system identified it 6 seconds away. That should be enough time to stop safely and/or manuever around the pedestrian. So I really don't see a speed issue. The issue is that the Uber system did not react in a timely fashion, the human driver was not prepared to drive, and the Uber system test did not have appropriate safety controls.

by kag0 6y ago

fernly 6y ago

The article say the collision happened at 39mph. Was that over the limit for that location? If so, the (design of the) automated car should be partly at fault. Self-drive cars should never exceed a speed limit. The defense attorney can argue that if the car had gone at legal speed for the location, the driver would have had more time to react, while the victim might have survived a slower impact. To which the prosecutor might reply, the safety driver had responsibility to keep the speed legal, along with everything else.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
The speed limit is simply irrelevant from a safety perspective. The number on a sign is just that, a number. Sure you can use it in the absence of all else but it should be tossed if there's any other information to use. Self driving cars should be going as fast as whatever is normal for the rest of the traffic in those conditions and at that time. Creeping along at 55mph in the right line while 75mph traffic dodges you is anything but safe. Safety is achieved through homogeneous traffic flow and in practice that means not having a minority of traffic that's going very fast nor very slow nor a bimodal distribution. Modern civil engineering doctrine is to set the speed limit based on traffic speed and to control the traffic speed with the road design/features so "but the law" holds about as much water as a net if the goal is safety. That said, the court cares about the letter of the law (as it should) so your proposed defense may in fact be beneficial. Edit: Whether I care matters not.
- darkerside 6y ago
  You may not care, but others do. That makes the anomalous speeding vehicle now difficulty to anticipate for crossing pedestrians.
- turtle-san 6y ago
  >The speed limit is simply irrelevant from a safety perspective. That depends on the type of road. On an interstate or highway your argument holds, but in urban and suburban areas, where there are side-streets, stop-signs, traffic lights, crosswalks, bicyclist, pedestrians that is not the case. The faster a driver is going the less time they have to respond to new information, this is clear. Also I argue that with most cars going fast, and most cars are not giving the car in front of them enough space, that a car is less likely to slow down when they should (like when passing a bicyclist or making a turn across a crosswalk before they look who is in it or approaching it). I also argue, as does the commenter below me, that anomalous speeding vehicles can be dangerous to anyone that is using/crossing a road using a decision making processes that relies on cars going a certain speed. My experience as a bicyclist on some roads, where there are 4 narrow lanes (2 in each direction), with a 30 mph speed limit but where the cars drive 40-45 mph, is that I can have two cars both pass me at the same time on my left, passing very close, because the car farthest on the right does not slow down and get into the left lane. My experience as a walker has cars turning into my crosswalk at high speeds all the time. Left-hand turns are particularly bad. I would also argue that higher speed limits are more stressful for everyone involved. Not nice for bicyclists, pedestrians, exercisers, scooter riders, people going for a stroll, or sitting outside, or even living next to such a road. Not even nice for other drivers who just want to go the speed limit and not get ran off the road by impatient drivers. For this reason as well, quality of life in urban and suburban areas, do I argue that speed limits matter.

toast0 6y ago

According to wikipedia, the car was traveling at 43 mph when it detected the pedestrian, and street has a posted 45 mph limit. There was no reported inclement weather, heavy traffic, or faulty lighting, so I don't see a reason to suspect traveling just below the speed limit should be considered speeding. Police had released a statement claiming the limit was 35 mph, although that's contradicted by the signs. According to police, 85% of drivers would have identified the pedestrian 5.6 seconds away, and the Uber system identified it 6 seconds away. That should be enough time to stop safely and/or manuever around the pedestrian. So I really don't see a speed issue. The issue is that the Uber system did not react in a timely fashion, the human driver was not prepared to drive, and the Uber system test did not have appropriate safety controls.