5 ms·
that's the fundamental attribution error again, attributing poor judgement/negligence to the driver, who's the visible actor, rather than the inherent systemic
by clairity 6y ago
that's the fundamental attribution error again, attributing poor judgement/negligence to the driver, who's the visible actor, rather than the inherent systemic flaws designed by other unseen actors who hold greater responsibility.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y agoI think we can all agree that many murderers end up committing their crimes partly because of a system that gives rise to poverty and the knock on effects of poverty on humans. However, I think most folks also agree that incarceration is an important factor in discouraging the commission of more murders. Not everyone does but even the most lenient countries tend not to let the perp off scott free. Which is all to say that "the system made me do it" really doesn't fly as an excuse for felonious behavior.
- clairity 6y agosure, but that extreme isn't helpful just as making the FAE isn't helpful, since, as others have astutely pointed out, the system was designed, whether through negligence, malevolence or other intentions, to put the driver in a (systemic) no-win situation. for instance, in the 737 max crashes, the pilots made errors, but the principal blame lies with boeing and their egregious systemic design flaws.
- FeepingCreature 6y agoIf deterrence didn't work, prison would be pointless cruelty. Paying sustained attention while nothing happens for hours is simply not something people are generally suited for. You can't deterrence them into it.
- baddox 6y agoWould you say the same thing for a chauffeur or truck driver who killed someone because they were using their phone while driving?
- abduhl 6y agoWhen some people learn to drive they can take courses with instructors who sit in the passenger seat and have a brake pedal. When the student driver runs over and kills a pedestrian while the instructor is on their phone, is it the instructor or the student who should face liability? Why not both?
- lkdsajflkfdsjg 6y agoI'm fairly sure the instructor is at least partly liable.
- Ichthypresbyter 6y agoIn England certainly the person supervising a learner driver is subject to the same laws about alcohol, mobile phone use, etc as someone actually driving- and can be convicted on a charge of aiding and abetting any crime the learner driver commits. This is the case regardless of whether they are a professional driving instructor with their own brake pedal, or a parent supervising their child driving the family car.
- glaberficken 6y agoIn Portugal there is an interesting law regarding this: The instructor/examiner is always liable for an accident during driving lessons/exams, except if the accident resulted from an action where the learner disobeyed a direct order by the instructor. In that case the learner takes responsibility.
- clairity 6y agono, because the system is not adversarial in that case, even though the actions of the driver, and the potential tragic results, might be similar.
- liability 6y agoThat somebody driving a truck or car in the normal way is doing more work than a person supervising a self driving car is the whole point of self-driving cars. They take all of the activity out of driving, but none of the tedium. I don't think it's realistic to expect people to function well under those conditions.
- petra 6y agoI think that might have passed if he only listened to the radio, a good enough way to relieve boredom. But streaming video ? That's a punishable offense while driving. Also, many people work at really boring jobs. If serious errors happens while you watch netflix, you'll get fired, for sure. But again, sometimes listening to music is permissable.
- dontcarethrow2 6y agoSo how did this worker get through their screening/interview process? When hiring for this job which criteria did they focus on? Why even allow the driver to carry their screen around? Massive failure, I think there is too much FSD coolaid in the valley springs. I am somewhat surprised we had the power to stop/pause them after this reported unfortunate event. Anyone working on FSD today should focus entirely on mass transit vehicles mkay tnx
- ALittleLight 6y agoIt's an error to attribute negligence to the safety driver of an experimental car who is watching a video rather than watching the road? Obviously the system should improve to make errors less likely, but that doesn't absolve anyone of guilt in my view.
- LoSboccacc 6y agoair lines have reached their current safety precisely because they consider the whole system as a whole and not just focus on the error. the wet bags behind the autopilot get bored, distracted, complacent, ill or reckless due a moltitude of factors some of which outside their control it is well known at this point the human modes of failure, and that there was basically no mitigation is a reasonability of the system designer
- PJDK 6y agoBut holding individuals accountable for their actions. A better system would have spotted this person was watching their phone not the road, but it would still have held them accountable and (at minimum) fired them!
- kevinmchugh 6y agoThis flaw is perfectly predictable, given other experience in industrial safety, so why was the better system not built?
- PJDK 6y agoA totally fair point, Uber needs to be held to account for their systemic failings. That doesn't mean that an employee being clearly negligent doesn't also need to be held accountable. Them being held accountable is one part of a good system.
- infogulch 6y agoWe can discuss morality endlessly. We have (collectively) agreed to use the law to assign guilt and mete judgement -- this the court case will bear out eventually. What's left is the problem itself abstracted from the particulars of this case. And the best approach to solving this kind of problem, as evidenced by the aviation industry's miraculous safety record, is to consider the concept of assigning blame as out of scope because it shouldn't be the basis for our safety precautions. In this context, blame is something that distracts you from the real cause and can prevent you from looking more closely. Blame is a kind of 'bottom' argument which in practice is wielded to dismiss alternative perspectives and refuse to integrate their ideas.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- robertlagrant 6y agoSaying it's an attribution error is circular. It's a conclusion, not a premise. And I think it's wrong. If my car is on cruise control, that doesn't mean I can stop worrying about my speed. You can't always just blame the company because it's the bigger entity.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]