3 ms·

I think youre drawing the conclusions you want from the scenario. The truth is that Uber removed safety features from the car that could've stopped this and the

I think youre drawing the conclusions you want from the scenario. The truth is that Uber removed safety features from the car that could've stopped this and the car only recognized pedestrians if there was a crosswalk. If you ask me this is not the woman's fault, they're framing it like she was "at the wheel" because they want to shirk responsibility, and probably paying good PR money to these news rags to keep the narrative going too. Uber did this, they knowingly put an unsafe machine on the road and it killed someone. They put someone at a computer in a call center as a fall guy and it worked.

buro9 3y ago
I didn't draw conclusions about this specific instance. Consequences should exist, and should be a deterrence against unsafe behaviour no matter the party. Consequences for corporations should be more significant than for individuals IMHO. If Uber contributed to this in their training of their safety driver, the equipment in use, disabling built-in safety features, and so forth... then they should have penalties severe enough to adjust their behaviour too. My thinking is that the more vulnerable a road user, the greater the ownership is on the less vulnerable, meaning the greater the consequences of their choices. What I didn't do is limit "their" to just a driver / safety driver.