A self-driving Uber car has hit and killed a woman in the first known autonomous vehicle death

[Insensitive]

Self driving cars don't have to be perfect, they just has to be better than people. If you think about it, that's not that high of a bar.

Frankly, looking at one death from an automated car and condemning the whole idea isn't too far off from condemning the idea of global warming because it just snowed.

If you think about it that's an immensely high bar.

Brehs under estimate just how much brain processing power it takes to do the most menial tasks including driving. We're just now getting to the point computers are fast enough to do so.

And this is right around the time Moore's law is breaking down and continued hardware improvement becomes an increasingly more expensive proposition.

 

[Shogun]

If you think about it that's an immensely high bar.

Brehs under estimate just how much brain processing power it takes to do the most menial tasks including driving. We're just now getting to the point computers are fast enough to do so.

And this is right around the time Moore's law is breaking down and continued hardware improvement becomes an increasingly more expensive proposition.

Maybe, but one fatal accident isnt enough to delegitimatize the entire effort, in my opinion.

 

[Take It In Blood]

her family gonna bankrupt Uber

give me 200 milllion to settle out of court or else Im taking u to court for 500 mill

 

[HiphopRelated]

This automated car shyt won't take off fully for at least another 20-30 years.

Law suits galore.

I think that time line is too long. 2030 for the latest, at least in major cities.

 

[Uncle Phil 36]

I bet you its the victims fault

 

[MAKAVELI25]

But the idea that they fukk up as a lower frequency than regular drivers doesn't answer the question of liability.


Lets say they've got robo cops and they never shoot anyone except for the 1 time a year when they do. someone still has to be held responsible for the fukk up, no matter the frequency

But you're also assuming there's a fukk up on the robot's side. What if the shooting by Robo Cop was legally justified? Say the assailant was illegally discharging an automatic weapon in a public place and posed a danger to human life.

Similarly, just cuz the woman got killed doesn't mean someone is automatically liable. The Plaintiff still has to prove negligence, and let's face it, some pedestrians are dumb as fukk.

 

[Json]

But you're also assuming there's a fukk up on the robot's side. What if the shooting by Robo Cop was legally justified? Say the assailant was illegally discharging an automatic weapon in a public place and posed a danger to human life.

Similarly, just cuz the woman got killed doesn't mean someone is automatically liable. The Plaintiff still has to prove negligence, and let's face it, some pedestrians are dumb as fukk.

If there is a person in the automated car it might make it hard to blame the victim no matter what. Having a human “failsafe” is an admission of something could go wrong.

It’s like those faulty airbags. It doesn’t matter if the person behind the wheel was drunk, the airbag didn’t do what it was supposed to do.

 

[MAKAVELI25]

If there is a person in the automated car it might make it hard to blame the victim no matter what. Having a human “failsafe” is an admission of something could go wrong.

It’s like those faulty airbags. It doesn’t matter if the person behind the wheel was drunk, the airbag didn’t do what it was supposed to do.

But look at your example, in your own words, the airbag didn't do what it was supposed to do. The AIRBAG itself was faulty. That is what precipitated the liability, not the mere fact that the person was injured.

The Plaintiff still has to prove some kind of defect or negligence that led to the death, this isn't necessarily a strict liability situation. Say we find out the chick crossed the street while the Uber had the right of way and was herself the chief cause of the accident, you still think that Uber is automatically liable?

You're more likely right if the case is argued on the Product liability theory, THAT could warrant strict liability, but i would still want to know more facts about the womans actions and the Uber's path before I made any guesses on liability. The law, and especially tort law, is usually very context-dependent.

 

[Json]

But look at your example, in your own words, the airbag didn't do what it was supposed to do. The AIRBAG itself was faulty. That is what precipitated the liability, not the mere fact that the person was injured.

The Plaintiff still has to prove some kind of defect or negligence that led to the death, this isn't necessarily a strict liability situation. Say we find out the chick crossed the street while the Uber had the right of way and was herself the chief cause of the accident, you still think that Uber is automatically liable?

You're more likely right if the case is argued on the Product liability theory, THAT could warrant strict liability, but i would still want to know more facts about the womans actions and the Uber's path before I made any guesses on liability. The law, and especially tort law, is usually very context-dependent.

You obviously know more about law than me and my 5 hour Law and Order marathon degree will get me. lol

I think, because this is such a new technology, the liability laws of a driverless car are going to be written by it and others following, so I can see how an argument being made for the distractions on the road being more than the car can handle or predict so that's why the driver is there. So that would leave Uber and Co. open to the fact they take more responsibility by removing the person behind the wheel.

 

[88m3]

I'm strongly opposed to autonomous cars in cities

 

[Geek Nasty]

Respect to the family but glad this finally happened. Corporate America had a hardon for driverless cars and we needed something like this to pump the brakes and start getting these fools sued.

 

[DEAD7]

Respect to the family but glad this finally happened. Corporate America had a hardon for driverless cars and we needed something like this to pump the brakes and start getting these fools sued.

Why?

 

[NZA]

i live in tempe, so i see these vehicles every single day. no matter what people tell you about the low odds of an accident, it is still scary. i saw a close call with one of them swerving for no reason; dont know if it was the human or the car that hit the brakes but it stopped just in time to avoid hitting another car. anyway, arizona is probably the most dangerous state for pedestrians and that is due to humans, so i guess the robo-cars are probably still doing better than the people cars.

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

the car had been drinking

 

[Robbie3000]

I hope people don't over react. I'll bet these driver less cars are safer than human operated cars.