11 ms·

> The horrific crash occurred at 9:35 p.m. at Market and Fifth streets after the traffic light turned green, giving the Cruise car and other car — which had bee

> The horrific crash occurred at 9:35 p.m. at Market and Fifth streets after the traffic light turned green, giving the Cruise car and other car — which had been waiting side-by-side for the light — the right to enter the intersection where a woman was walking, according to video of the crash In fact, the driver of the car did not have "the right to enter the intersection" if it meant they were going to run a pedestrian over, no matter what color the light was. How did we get to the point where reflexive empathy for drivers over everyone else has completely trumped basic understanding of both the law and human decency?

aidenn0 3y ago
Technically, it gives them the right to enter the intersection, but not the right to hit a pedestrian (or a car for that matter).
- atourgates 3y ago
  I've been trying to think this through a bit. The way I understand it is: There are two cars waiting to go through an intersection. The Cruise and the Human-Driven car. The light turns green, and the Cruise's pathway through the intersection is clear. A pedestrian is crossing the intersection in the path of the human-driven car, but not in the path of the Cruise. Both cars enter the intersection, the human-driven car strikes the pedestrian, who then rolls off the human-driven car into the path of the Cruise, and is run-over the Cruise. Of course, I haven't seen the accident, but if that's broadly correct, I'm not sure that this is the damning evidence of "driverless cars are unsafe" some people seem to be spinning it up to be. It is a tragedy, but it seems to be a tragedy caused primarily by a human driver who struck a pedestrian, and a human pedestrian who ignored a traffic signal. Should the bar for driverless cars be "able to predict when other vehicles will hit a pedestrian and roll that person in their path"? Would a human-driven vhicle have done any better? If the places were reversed, would the Cruise have struck the pedestrian in the first place? I think we're all right to be skeptical of machine-driven cars, but I'm not certain that this specific incident is a point against them.
  - justin66 3y ago
    > Should the bar for driverless cars be "able to predict when other vehicles will hit a pedestrian and roll that person in their path"? JFC. How about "do not enter an intersection where pedestrians are present?"
    - vel0city 3y ago
      Depending on the geometry of the scene its entirely possible the pedestrian was not visible to the self driving car until after they were struck by the first car.
    - aidenn0 3y ago
      > JFC. How about "do not enter an intersection where pedestrians are present?" So no entering intersections at all in major cities during rush hour?
  - tzs 3y ago
    > Should the bar for driverless cars be "able to predict when other vehicles will hit a pedestrian and roll that person in their path"? No, but in the case of pedestrians crossing the street it may be reasonable to expect a driverless car to avoid getting into a situation where that can happen. This will depend on details of traffic laws where it is operating. What are the clearance rules in California for staying clear of pedestrians crossing the street? Here in Washington it is that if they are in your half of the street or within one lane of your half you have to wait. For purposes of this rule your half of the street is all lanes moving in your direction. No Washington driver should be going until either the pedestrian finishes crossing or there is at least one lane between the lanes in the car's direction and the lane the pedestrian is in. If a human driver here goes early and hits the pedestrian and the pedestrian ends up in an adjacent lane they should still be safe from other cars that did not go early.
    - aidenn0 3y ago
      In California, aside from pedestrians in a crosswalk having right of way, a driver approaching a crosswalk with a pedestrian: > ... shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian. In addition, all of the rules for pedestrians (no jaywalking, don't dash off the curb in front of a car, even in a crosswalk) include a provision that state they do not "relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within the [roadway or crosswalk]"
- throwaway290 3y ago
  I don't think you can enter an intersection if not hitting a pedestrian means you would be blocking that intersection...
  - aidenn0 3y ago
    The state I learned to drive in didn't have an anti-gridlock law[1], so I had to look this up for California. The text of the anti-gridlock law is: > Notwithstanding any official traffic control signal indication to proceed, a driver of a vehicle shall not enter an intersection or marked crosswalk unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection or marked crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle driven without obstructing the through the passage of vehicles from either side Assuming the pedestrian counts as being on the "other side of the intersection" and prevents there from being sufficient space to "accommodate the vehicle being driven" I think you are correct. 1: They would put up a "do not block intersection" sign anywhere that this became a problem, and then you could get ticketed for disobeying a road sign.
    - throwaway290 3y ago
      Interesting to know. I don't drive but I saw enough how getting a car in the way of other cars (or pedestrians to slightly lesser degree) without already having a way out is a dice roll. Thought it might not be allowed
andrei_says_ 3y ago
Someone sweat the wording of this. Pedestrians always have the right of way including when breaking the law. There’s no scenario when a driver has the right to run someone over. So, the robot basically ignored the first law of robotics which coincidentally is the first law of driving.
- ct0 3y ago
  Unless it is self defense. https://www.cnn.com/2015/05/20/us/new-york-bikers-attack/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2015/05/20/us/new-york-bikers-attack/ind...
  - Eggsellence 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - klyrs 3y ago
      Murder isn't a political opinion.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  >Pedestrians always have the right of way including when breaking the law. This is not true, nor does it make sense. If you are in the middle of the highway going 70 mph and someone is standing on the side of the road wanting to cross you do not have to yield and stop your vehicle. Stopping in the middle of the highway is dangerous since it isn't excepted.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - 8jef 3y ago
    Pedestrians always have the right of way ... on roads where they can be. Pedestrians and cyclists are forbidden on 70 mph highways. If I ever see someone on foot on such highway, after doing my best to avoid that person, I'll call 911 asap to report it. For anyone mad enough to claim right of way toward a pedestrian, in any situation, just think about the shitload of legal hurdles awaiting you down the road. Not worth it by any standard.
ericbarrett 3y ago
This is correct—CA Vehicle Code § 21950. Unless the pedestrian literally jumped in front of the car, the car needed to stop, even with a green light. Of course, the actual application of the law can be subtle.
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
> In fact, the driver of the car did not have "the right to enter the intersection" if it meant they were going to run a pedestrian over, no matter what color the light was. I've been in this situation before. I'm the third car in a line going on a green light at a light, and all of a sudden an unhoused neighbor pops in the intersection crossing, I slam on my brakes because I don't have the "right" to hit him, but damn, that was close.
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  If someone essentially jumps into traffic, you probably will be found to be not at fault if you hit the person. Not that you wouldn't do everything in your power to avoid it.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    In many cases you won't be found at fault, and probably in the vast majority of cases you won't be found criminally at fault (and in some jurisdictions, you are at fault just because you are in a car, and it doesn't matter how poorly the pedestrian behaved). However, it would still be a mess physically and mentally. No one wants that experience in their head for the rest of their lives.
    - JdeBP 3y ago
      An argument regularly put forward by Ashley Neale (YouTuber and driving instructor, and erstwhile soccer player) in the U.K.. Not being found at fault isn't the only factor.
tamimio 3y ago
> How did we get to the point where reflexive empathy for drivers over everyone else has completely trumped basic understanding of both the law and human decency? This! I sometimes watch some of these dashcam accidents, and I can say most of them can be avoided if everyone had some basic human decency, but it always go “I have the right of way I don’t care” attitude, yes you have a green light but obviously you are seeing other car is crossing the road, try to stop/avoid it instead it of ramming it, especially you are still accelerating not already at full speed..
apstats 3y ago
I think this is probably just bad wording on the part of the author. But I do think it's bad wording partially caused by a messed up view of the world vis a vis pedestrians and cars.
thegrim33 3y ago
Oh come on, you're really just twisting semantics to the extreme to try to score a political point. It's obvious the article wasn't actually saying the car had the right to hit the woman.
- mtlguitarist 3y ago
  In what way is pedestrian safety political? I have no political interests in this topic other than not wanting to be run over while walking around my city. I literally cannot trust drivers to follow the laws and plan my walks accordingly because I know drivers will ignore stop signs, red lights, etc.
Eggsellence 3y ago
[flagged]
- techdragon 3y ago
  Going to hold up the mirror here… how can you interpret this and excuse the driver from their responsibility to look where they are driving, to check the road ahead of them is safe and clear of danger to their fellow citizens be they motorists or pedestrians… they should never have an expectation that the road is clear… it’s their responsibility as a driver to continually be making sure of this fact… this is why we prosecute reckless driving, dangerous driving, driving without due care and attention, and a hundred other names from jurisdictions around the entire world… because if you push the gas pedal your fucking responsible for where the damn car goes… outside of extremely specific circumstances where we allow people to potentially have good reasons for their car not going where it should, faulty breaks and this sort of thing… other than that, it’s the damn drivers fault and they are responsible for operating the vehicle.
  - Eggsellence 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - techdragon 3y ago
      Um… the pedestrian was in the crossing area before the light went green. This isn’t the infamous suicide by Tesla type of scenario here… this was a pedestrian clearly already in the intersection… the intersection may not have been well enough lit but then once again it’s the drivers responsibility to turn on and use their lights for safety… the pedestrian clearly had the right to enter the intersection and while they may not have cleared it quickly enough to avoid being there when the light changed, I’ve seen shitloads of lights around the world that are set to absurdly short pedestrian crossing times which genuinely require an adult to move at a brisk jog or faster if they want to get across the lights before they move from “pedestrian Only” to “pedestrians shouldn’t enter the crossing area and cars are now given the green light to begin moving” And while the full story has not yet come out, the story is quite detailed for a hit and run, we know the pedestrian was struck and rolled up over the bonnet and over the car roof before their trajectory carried them towards the edge of the car roof upon which they proceeded to roll off the rear side roof of the car and that’s when they hit the road directly in front of the driverless car… this pedestrian got dumped basically from the sky as far as the AI on the driverless car can understand… There’s going to be a lot more evidence recorded by the driverless car likely including video with the offending human driver’s license plate on it at some point… and I expect a detailed account of the accident will be possible due to the investigations being able to correlate the current information and witnesses with whatever data from the driverless cars sensors Cruise chooses to or is forced to (by the NTSB/etc)

aidenn0 3y ago

Technically, it gives them the right to enter the intersection, but not the right to hit a pedestrian (or a car for that matter).

atourgates 3y ago
I've been trying to think this through a bit. The way I understand it is: There are two cars waiting to go through an intersection. The Cruise and the Human-Driven car. The light turns green, and the Cruise's pathway through the intersection is clear. A pedestrian is crossing the intersection in the path of the human-driven car, but not in the path of the Cruise. Both cars enter the intersection, the human-driven car strikes the pedestrian, who then rolls off the human-driven car into the path of the Cruise, and is run-over the Cruise. Of course, I haven't seen the accident, but if that's broadly correct, I'm not sure that this is the damning evidence of "driverless cars are unsafe" some people seem to be spinning it up to be. It is a tragedy, but it seems to be a tragedy caused primarily by a human driver who struck a pedestrian, and a human pedestrian who ignored a traffic signal. Should the bar for driverless cars be "able to predict when other vehicles will hit a pedestrian and roll that person in their path"? Would a human-driven vhicle have done any better? If the places were reversed, would the Cruise have struck the pedestrian in the first place? I think we're all right to be skeptical of machine-driven cars, but I'm not certain that this specific incident is a point against them.
- justin66 3y ago
  > Should the bar for driverless cars be "able to predict when other vehicles will hit a pedestrian and roll that person in their path"? JFC. How about "do not enter an intersection where pedestrians are present?"
  - vel0city 3y ago
    Depending on the geometry of the scene its entirely possible the pedestrian was not visible to the self driving car until after they were struck by the first car.
  - aidenn0 3y ago
    > JFC. How about "do not enter an intersection where pedestrians are present?" So no entering intersections at all in major cities during rush hour?
- tzs 3y ago
  > Should the bar for driverless cars be "able to predict when other vehicles will hit a pedestrian and roll that person in their path"? No, but in the case of pedestrians crossing the street it may be reasonable to expect a driverless car to avoid getting into a situation where that can happen. This will depend on details of traffic laws where it is operating. What are the clearance rules in California for staying clear of pedestrians crossing the street? Here in Washington it is that if they are in your half of the street or within one lane of your half you have to wait. For purposes of this rule your half of the street is all lanes moving in your direction. No Washington driver should be going until either the pedestrian finishes crossing or there is at least one lane between the lanes in the car's direction and the lane the pedestrian is in. If a human driver here goes early and hits the pedestrian and the pedestrian ends up in an adjacent lane they should still be safe from other cars that did not go early.
  - aidenn0 3y ago
    In California, aside from pedestrians in a crosswalk having right of way, a driver approaching a crosswalk with a pedestrian: > ... shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian. In addition, all of the rules for pedestrians (no jaywalking, don't dash off the curb in front of a car, even in a crosswalk) include a provision that state they do not "relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within the [roadway or crosswalk]"
throwaway290 3y ago
I don't think you can enter an intersection if not hitting a pedestrian means you would be blocking that intersection...
- aidenn0 3y ago
  The state I learned to drive in didn't have an anti-gridlock law[1], so I had to look this up for California. The text of the anti-gridlock law is: > Notwithstanding any official traffic control signal indication to proceed, a driver of a vehicle shall not enter an intersection or marked crosswalk unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection or marked crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle driven without obstructing the through the passage of vehicles from either side Assuming the pedestrian counts as being on the "other side of the intersection" and prevents there from being sufficient space to "accommodate the vehicle being driven" I think you are correct. 1: They would put up a "do not block intersection" sign anywhere that this became a problem, and then you could get ticketed for disobeying a road sign.
  - throwaway290 3y ago
    Interesting to know. I don't drive but I saw enough how getting a car in the way of other cars (or pedestrians to slightly lesser degree) without already having a way out is a dice roll. Thought it might not be allowed

andrei_says_ 3y ago

Someone sweat the wording of this. Pedestrians always have the right of way including when breaking the law. There’s no scenario when a driver has the right to run someone over. So, the robot basically ignored the first law of robotics which coincidentally is the first law of driving.

ct0 3y ago
Unless it is self defense. https://www.cnn.com/2015/05/20/us/new-york-bikers-attack/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2015/05/20/us/new-york-bikers-attack/ind...
- Eggsellence 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - klyrs 3y ago
    Murder isn't a political opinion.
charcircuit 3y ago
>Pedestrians always have the right of way including when breaking the law. This is not true, nor does it make sense. If you are in the middle of the highway going 70 mph and someone is standing on the side of the road wanting to cross you do not have to yield and stop your vehicle. Stopping in the middle of the highway is dangerous since it isn't excepted.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- 8jef 3y ago
  Pedestrians always have the right of way ... on roads where they can be. Pedestrians and cyclists are forbidden on 70 mph highways. If I ever see someone on foot on such highway, after doing my best to avoid that person, I'll call 911 asap to report it. For anyone mad enough to claim right of way toward a pedestrian, in any situation, just think about the shitload of legal hurdles awaiting you down the road. Not worth it by any standard.

ericbarrett 3y ago

This is correct—CA Vehicle Code § 21950. Unless the pedestrian literally jumped in front of the car, the car needed to stop, even with a green light. Of course, the actual application of the law can be subtle.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

> In fact, the driver of the car did not have "the right to enter the intersection" if it meant they were going to run a pedestrian over, no matter what color the light was. I've been in this situation before. I'm the third car in a line going on a green light at a light, and all of a sudden an unhoused neighbor pops in the intersection crossing, I slam on my brakes because I don't have the "right" to hit him, but damn, that was close.

SoftTalker 3y ago
If someone essentially jumps into traffic, you probably will be found to be not at fault if you hit the person. Not that you wouldn't do everything in your power to avoid it.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  In many cases you won't be found at fault, and probably in the vast majority of cases you won't be found criminally at fault (and in some jurisdictions, you are at fault just because you are in a car, and it doesn't matter how poorly the pedestrian behaved). However, it would still be a mess physically and mentally. No one wants that experience in their head for the rest of their lives.
  - JdeBP 3y ago
    An argument regularly put forward by Ashley Neale (YouTuber and driving instructor, and erstwhile soccer player) in the U.K.. Not being found at fault isn't the only factor.

tamimio 3y ago

> How did we get to the point where reflexive empathy for drivers over everyone else has completely trumped basic understanding of both the law and human decency? This! I sometimes watch some of these dashcam accidents, and I can say most of them can be avoided if everyone had some basic human decency, but it always go “I have the right of way I don’t care” attitude, yes you have a green light but obviously you are seeing other car is crossing the road, try to stop/avoid it instead it of ramming it, especially you are still accelerating not already at full speed..

apstats 3y ago

I think this is probably just bad wording on the part of the author. But I do think it's bad wording partially caused by a messed up view of the world vis a vis pedestrians and cars.

thegrim33 3y ago

Oh come on, you're really just twisting semantics to the extreme to try to score a political point. It's obvious the article wasn't actually saying the car had the right to hit the woman.

mtlguitarist 3y ago
In what way is pedestrian safety political? I have no political interests in this topic other than not wanting to be run over while walking around my city. I literally cannot trust drivers to follow the laws and plan my walks accordingly because I know drivers will ignore stop signs, red lights, etc.

Eggsellence 3y ago

[flagged]

techdragon 3y ago
Going to hold up the mirror here… how can you interpret this and excuse the driver from their responsibility to look where they are driving, to check the road ahead of them is safe and clear of danger to their fellow citizens be they motorists or pedestrians… they should never have an expectation that the road is clear… it’s their responsibility as a driver to continually be making sure of this fact… this is why we prosecute reckless driving, dangerous driving, driving without due care and attention, and a hundred other names from jurisdictions around the entire world… because if you push the gas pedal your fucking responsible for where the damn car goes… outside of extremely specific circumstances where we allow people to potentially have good reasons for their car not going where it should, faulty breaks and this sort of thing… other than that, it’s the damn drivers fault and they are responsible for operating the vehicle.
- Eggsellence 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - techdragon 3y ago
    Um… the pedestrian was in the crossing area before the light went green. This isn’t the infamous suicide by Tesla type of scenario here… this was a pedestrian clearly already in the intersection… the intersection may not have been well enough lit but then once again it’s the drivers responsibility to turn on and use their lights for safety… the pedestrian clearly had the right to enter the intersection and while they may not have cleared it quickly enough to avoid being there when the light changed, I’ve seen shitloads of lights around the world that are set to absurdly short pedestrian crossing times which genuinely require an adult to move at a brisk jog or faster if they want to get across the lights before they move from “pedestrian Only” to “pedestrians shouldn’t enter the crossing area and cars are now given the green light to begin moving” And while the full story has not yet come out, the story is quite detailed for a hit and run, we know the pedestrian was struck and rolled up over the bonnet and over the car roof before their trajectory carried them towards the edge of the car roof upon which they proceeded to roll off the rear side roof of the car and that’s when they hit the road directly in front of the driverless car… this pedestrian got dumped basically from the sky as far as the AI on the driverless car can understand… There’s going to be a lot more evidence recorded by the driverless car likely including video with the offending human driver’s license plate on it at some point… and I expect a detailed account of the accident will be possible due to the investigations being able to correlate the current information and witnesses with whatever data from the driverless cars sensors Cruise chooses to or is forced to (by the NTSB/etc)