5 ms·

We should absolutely be blaming the individual in this case. They were negligent in their stated job role which led directly to the death of a bystander. We sho

by _AzMoo 6y ago

We should absolutely be blaming the individual in this case. They were negligent in their stated job role which led directly to the death of a bystander. We should also be finding fault with the processes and finding solutions for them, but this does not absolve the driver of their responsibility.

Hokusai 6y ago
> They were negligent in their stated job role This is not how labor laws work. The role description needs to be fair. A employer cannot just shift all the blame to the employee. The employer needs to take the needed actions and provide the needed equipment and procedures so the employee can do her task. But, let's see what the result of the trial is. I am not an expert and the trial will clarify this point.
- _AzMoo 6y ago
  I'm not saying the company should be able to shift the blame to the employee, I'm saying they're both at fault. Labour Law in Australia does in fact recognise this and individuals can be held criminally liable for negligence on the job. I understand that this happened in the United States, but my intention is not to predict the outcome of the case, but to make a statement about who should be held liable in a just system.
- woadwarrior01 6y ago
  Indeed, the employers are very much liable for negligence by their employees and its scope is much wider than labour laws. This is called Vicarious liability[1] in common law. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability
  - pc86 6y ago
    I don't think anyone is arguing that Uber has no liability here, only that the driver does have liability.
    - wonderwonder 6y ago
      Well to be fair, the the prosecutors office is arguing that. "Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk decided in March 2019 that Uber itself had not committed a crime in Herzberg's death."
      - pc86 6y ago
        I stand corrected, thank you
- lhorie 6y ago
  The thing is that there are plenty of precedents for jobs that require staying alert behind the wheel of a motorized vehicle without supervision (e.g. taxi, bus, truck drivers). Whether the vehicle is equipped with safety/convenience technology is beside the point.
  - user5994461 6y ago
    The taxi/bus isn't given a tablet with instructions to watch the tablet (monitoring the self driving), only to be accused later of not watching the road.
    - lhorie 6y ago
      Are you saying this was the case here? Are you you familiar with the protocols used at the time or are you speculating? I see e.g. cruise and waymo SDVs around SF with only one person on board. What of those? My very layperson protocol would be "watch the road while the car is in motion, only use tablet when car is safely parked". My understanding is that SDVs store all the data it collects, so I see no reason to require operating a tablet while the vehicle is in motion. Correct me if I'm wrong.
      - user5994461 6y ago
        Previous articles mentioned that the driver has some tablet device(s) to watch, to monitor what's happening with the AI. The last PR piece seems to omit that. Next piece maybe we will find out the driver was watching hulu on their phone on their lap... while reclassifying objects on the AI tablet also on their lap.
        lhorie 6y ago
        Ok, but what I'm curious is whether the monitoring/classifying/whatever was done in real time with the vehicle in motion, or after the fact. Presumably one would be able to do a far better job at whatever they were doing when they are able to play back/slow down/pause different data channels from a trip at will? Because if the status quo is to poke at tablets in moving vehicles, how is anyone ok w/ cruise/waymo/whatever cars driving around SF?
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > This is not how labor laws work Labor laws are irrelevant. They were grossly negligent in operating a vehicle, which is the domain of criminal, not labor, law. Principal-agent aspects of criminal law may also provide liability for the employer, though apparently they haven't been charged. Which, to the extent they could be, is unfortunate because it is only employer liability, civil and/or criminal, that is likely to substantively effect the likelihood of recurrence, because while the individual is absolutely culpable, it's not the kind of behavior where individual criminal liability is likely to be an effective deterrent without better employer supervision, which won't happen unless she employer has a reason to pay for that cost.
onetimemanytime 6y ago
>>We should absolutely be blaming the individual in this case. Extreme case: Your employer tells you to stay alert in a super-boring job for 8 straight hours or else a person can die or whatever. But that may be an impossibility due to how our brain works. I'd like to know how many hours was he sitting there and how often did he have to intervene that day /week /month. Uber, maybe, should have had another one checking now and then on drivers. Say one for 10 drivers...
- pc86 6y ago
  If she had fallen asleep or something I would be inclined to agree with you, but she was on her phone while she was supposed to be "driving." Boring or not it seems pretty obvious that you shouldn't be on your phone when you're in charge of a moving vehicle.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  If she could not do the job then she should have resigned. Edit: there was another post by [redacted] but it disappeared, it does not even show as deleted, weird. It said: "This isn't some ride along in a consumer grade EV. They were gathering data to program the car with. The emergency braking systems were not active. The person that was supposed to be monitoring the vehicle knew this."
  - dang 6y ago
    When a commenter deletes their comment, it disappears. It would probably be more respectful not to copy what they posted along with their username. Actually, I think we'd better redact the username from your quote. People sometimes have important personal reasons for deleting things. The odds aren't high that it matters but the impact could be high if it did.
    - dependenttypes 6y ago
      It would be probably be more respectful if you would not mess with my posts, now even I do not know who made said comment. Guess I should start signing my posts and keep backups of them. People sometimes have important personal reasons for deleting things but this does not mean anything. It is not as if "x posted y on twitter and deleted it afterwards" or "the page was edited/deleted, here is an archive.org link" is uncommon on HN, nor it is as if a stalker would not be able to scrap HN posts of someone instantly as they were posted. > it disappears. In my experience they show as [deleted] but I guess this is only for posts that have replies.

by _AzMoo 6y ago

Hokusai 6y ago

> They were negligent in their stated job role This is not how labor laws work. The role description needs to be fair. A employer cannot just shift all the blame to the employee. The employer needs to take the needed actions and provide the needed equipment and procedures so the employee can do her task. But, let's see what the result of the trial is. I am not an expert and the trial will clarify this point.

_AzMoo 6y ago
I'm not saying the company should be able to shift the blame to the employee, I'm saying they're both at fault. Labour Law in Australia does in fact recognise this and individuals can be held criminally liable for negligence on the job. I understand that this happened in the United States, but my intention is not to predict the outcome of the case, but to make a statement about who should be held liable in a just system.
woadwarrior01 6y ago
Indeed, the employers are very much liable for negligence by their employees and its scope is much wider than labour laws. This is called Vicarious liability[1] in common law. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability
- pc86 6y ago
  I don't think anyone is arguing that Uber has no liability here, only that the driver does have liability.
  - wonderwonder 6y ago
    Well to be fair, the the prosecutors office is arguing that. "Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk decided in March 2019 that Uber itself had not committed a crime in Herzberg's death."
    - pc86 6y ago
      I stand corrected, thank you
lhorie 6y ago
The thing is that there are plenty of precedents for jobs that require staying alert behind the wheel of a motorized vehicle without supervision (e.g. taxi, bus, truck drivers). Whether the vehicle is equipped with safety/convenience technology is beside the point.
- user5994461 6y ago
  The taxi/bus isn't given a tablet with instructions to watch the tablet (monitoring the self driving), only to be accused later of not watching the road.
  - lhorie 6y ago
    Are you saying this was the case here? Are you you familiar with the protocols used at the time or are you speculating? I see e.g. cruise and waymo SDVs around SF with only one person on board. What of those? My very layperson protocol would be "watch the road while the car is in motion, only use tablet when car is safely parked". My understanding is that SDVs store all the data it collects, so I see no reason to require operating a tablet while the vehicle is in motion. Correct me if I'm wrong.
    - user5994461 6y ago
      Previous articles mentioned that the driver has some tablet device(s) to watch, to monitor what's happening with the AI. The last PR piece seems to omit that. Next piece maybe we will find out the driver was watching hulu on their phone on their lap... while reclassifying objects on the AI tablet also on their lap.
      - lhorie 6y ago
        Ok, but what I'm curious is whether the monitoring/classifying/whatever was done in real time with the vehicle in motion, or after the fact. Presumably one would be able to do a far better job at whatever they were doing when they are able to play back/slow down/pause different data channels from a trip at will? Because if the status quo is to poke at tablets in moving vehicles, how is anyone ok w/ cruise/waymo/whatever cars driving around SF?
dragonwriter 6y ago
> This is not how labor laws work Labor laws are irrelevant. They were grossly negligent in operating a vehicle, which is the domain of criminal, not labor, law. Principal-agent aspects of criminal law may also provide liability for the employer, though apparently they haven't been charged. Which, to the extent they could be, is unfortunate because it is only employer liability, civil and/or criminal, that is likely to substantively effect the likelihood of recurrence, because while the individual is absolutely culpable, it's not the kind of behavior where individual criminal liability is likely to be an effective deterrent without better employer supervision, which won't happen unless she employer has a reason to pay for that cost.

onetimemanytime 6y ago

>>We should absolutely be blaming the individual in this case. Extreme case: Your employer tells you to stay alert in a super-boring job for 8 straight hours or else a person can die or whatever. But that may be an impossibility due to how our brain works. I'd like to know how many hours was he sitting there and how often did he have to intervene that day /week /month. Uber, maybe, should have had another one checking now and then on drivers. Say one for 10 drivers...

pc86 6y ago
If she had fallen asleep or something I would be inclined to agree with you, but she was on her phone while she was supposed to be "driving." Boring or not it seems pretty obvious that you shouldn't be on your phone when you're in charge of a moving vehicle.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dependenttypes 6y ago
If she could not do the job then she should have resigned. Edit: there was another post by [redacted] but it disappeared, it does not even show as deleted, weird. It said: "This isn't some ride along in a consumer grade EV. They were gathering data to program the car with. The emergency braking systems were not active. The person that was supposed to be monitoring the vehicle knew this."
- dang 6y ago
  When a commenter deletes their comment, it disappears. It would probably be more respectful not to copy what they posted along with their username. Actually, I think we'd better redact the username from your quote. People sometimes have important personal reasons for deleting things. The odds aren't high that it matters but the impact could be high if it did.
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    It would be probably be more respectful if you would not mess with my posts, now even I do not know who made said comment. Guess I should start signing my posts and keep backups of them. People sometimes have important personal reasons for deleting things but this does not mean anything. It is not as if "x posted y on twitter and deleted it afterwards" or "the page was edited/deleted, here is an archive.org link" is uncommon on HN, nor it is as if a stalker would not be able to scrap HN posts of someone instantly as they were posted. > it disappears. In my experience they show as [deleted] but I guess this is only for posts that have replies.