Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why 3X safer?? Wouldn't a 2x increase in safety be a great thing?
I think its a matter of opinion and no two people will agree.
I think that a self driving car is such a radical departure from today's technology that there has to be ultra-solid evidence that it is much safer than cars we drive ourselves.
You might have a point with 2 X as safe. I refuse to accept the idea that its 20% safer or even 50% safer. Statistics can be manipulated and there should be no question about it before such a technology is allowed.
I also would like to see some kind of a vote over this. Why should these cars be imposed against our will? If a majority of voters don't support this technology I think that's a reason to put it on hold for now too.
She was jaywalking which is illegal here. AZ has a high percentage of jaywalking incidents mostly because jaywalkers are looking at their cell phones or just not paying attention and bring these problems upon themselves.
Not to make light of a terrible situation, who pays the fines or goes to jail? The non-driver or the car??
Who gets sued?
I would assume Uber (they owned the vehicle and technology), who will probably settle the eventual wrongful death lawsuit for a million or two and just make it go away, even if they weren't solely responsible.
This is the sort of thing that will continue to happen more and more as society continues to worship technology more and more as if it is some sort of God. Common sense fled our society long ago. And even the most fail-safe technology we as humans have come up with fails. Since we are all would-be social engineers anyway, the logical pursuit would be to create a society that hadn't much need for a car. But nope. We want to take a bad idea and make it even worse and more invasive.
It will be instructive to see how much evidence gets released to the public in this incident. If Uber "cooperates fully" but simply wants to pay some money and then carry on with business... well, that will look very bad for Uber and the entire industry.
The car was not "self-driving." There was a driver. Question is what the heck was he doing?
Either not paying as much attention as he should or had no time after the allegedly homeless person walked out in front of the car.
I've hit a pedestrian before on a bicycle. We're not talking about real high speeds on a bicycle as I wasn't going down hill. Still, when they decide to jump off the sidewalk in front of you, they can do that amazingly quickly. Fortunately being a bicycle, no serious injuries, just some bruises on both our parts.
I'm not sure how much recording these autonomous cars actually do. Assuming they have some sort of black box function, and I assume they do, it shouldn't be that hard to tell when it "saw" the pedestrian prior to the point of impact. A random homeless person ambling out into the middle of the road (allegedly) really isn't the worst fear or any fear of autonomous cars. They do that. They get killed. Not to be callous about it or judgmental of the homeless and mentally ill, but thy just do that sort of thing more often than even phone zombies do. The upside is I assume the vehicle itself has adequate logging so it shouldn't be that hard to reconstruct, assuming the vehicle picked up the wandering pedestrian prior to collision.
I have not read any details yet, a pedestrian can easily just walk right out in front of a car without a thought, in Miami it is a frequent occurrence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.