4 ms·

This sounds about right. When Uber's driverless car killed someone they got off pretty easy: *"In March 2019, Arizona prosecutors ruled that Uber was not crimi

by c22 13d ago

This sounds about right. When Uber's driverless car killed someone they got off pretty easy: *"In March 2019, Arizona prosecutors ruled that Uber was not criminally responsible for the crash. The back-up driver of the vehicle was charged with negligent homicide, pled guilty to endangerment, and was sentenced to three years' probation." [0] 0:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Elaine_Herzberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Elaine_Herzberg

nextaccountic 13d ago
So.. there's a driver in driverless cars. A fall guy that will take all the blame should the company needs to produce someone to be arrested, but don't otherwise have leverage to earn a decent living
- gruez 13d ago
  >So.. there's a driver in driverless cars. A fall guy that will take all the blame should the company needs to produce someone to be arrested Are you seriously pretending the driver doesn't have agency here? This accident was easily preventable by the safety driver, which makes the "fall guy" characterization misleading. Sure, maybe there was some risk of complacency, but what's the alternative? Should uber have gone full workplace surveillance and have a camera trained on the safety driver's face, to make sure she was paying attention?
  - stefan_ 13d ago
    But.. they did have that? What a bizarre argument. And yes, if you make software that drives the car, release it into public traffic, and then your software runs someone over that would be plainly visible to a reasonable human driver (the misleading dashcam footage you release to make it seem way too dark [to a shitty dashcam sensor] notwithstanding) - you should absolutely bear responsibility! How is that even a question? You did that! Not whoever you put there as a "safety driver". We can adjudicate their responsibility separately, but it's certainly not 100%.
gruez 13d ago
>When Uber's driverless car killed someone they got off pretty easy: The driverless car that very much had a safety driver, which got distracted because she was watching TV shows on her phone?
- chadgpt8 13d ago
  How well would you handle being paid to do nothing without distractions, 8 hours every day?
- mrguyorama 13d ago
  The driverless car which, as well as having an insufficient and negligent safety driver (a regime that the Air Transport and Train industries would be happy to provide the hundred years worth of evidence that allows us to know ahead of time that this is not going to work), also had safety devices disabled. The point being, you shouldn't be allowed to just hand off liability to someone you know won't handle it. I don't care what you put in any contract, hiring someone should not be a get out of liability free card. You should be on the hook for putting in the effort required to be confident that liability is managed well. You should in fact not be allowed to do something dangerous, but say you were not liable because the danger was someone else's responsibility. No! The danger was your responsibility, no matter who you hire to manage it!

by c22 13d ago

nextaccountic 13d ago

So.. there's a driver in driverless cars. A fall guy that will take all the blame should the company needs to produce someone to be arrested, but don't otherwise have leverage to earn a decent living

gruez 13d ago
>So.. there's a driver in driverless cars. A fall guy that will take all the blame should the company needs to produce someone to be arrested Are you seriously pretending the driver doesn't have agency here? This accident was easily preventable by the safety driver, which makes the "fall guy" characterization misleading. Sure, maybe there was some risk of complacency, but what's the alternative? Should uber have gone full workplace surveillance and have a camera trained on the safety driver's face, to make sure she was paying attention?
- stefan_ 13d ago
  But.. they did have that? What a bizarre argument. And yes, if you make software that drives the car, release it into public traffic, and then your software runs someone over that would be plainly visible to a reasonable human driver (the misleading dashcam footage you release to make it seem way too dark [to a shitty dashcam sensor] notwithstanding) - you should absolutely bear responsibility! How is that even a question? You did that! Not whoever you put there as a "safety driver". We can adjudicate their responsibility separately, but it's certainly not 100%.

gruez 13d ago

>When Uber's driverless car killed someone they got off pretty easy: The driverless car that very much had a safety driver, which got distracted because she was watching TV shows on her phone?

chadgpt8 13d ago
How well would you handle being paid to do nothing without distractions, 8 hours every day?
mrguyorama 13d ago
The driverless car which, as well as having an insufficient and negligent safety driver (a regime that the Air Transport and Train industries would be happy to provide the hundred years worth of evidence that allows us to know ahead of time that this is not going to work), also had safety devices disabled. The point being, you shouldn't be allowed to just hand off liability to someone you know won't handle it. I don't care what you put in any contract, hiring someone should not be a get out of liability free card. You should be on the hook for putting in the effort required to be confident that liability is managed well. You should in fact not be allowed to do something dangerous, but say you were not liable because the danger was someone else's responsibility. No! The danger was your responsibility, no matter who you hire to manage it!