[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

Lets take little baby steps so we can find where we agree or differ...

1. A driver was in the vehicle in this case. WE AGREE ON THIS.

No, driver was passenger sitting in drivers seat

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

2. A driver may not necessarily be required with a Level 4 or 5 ADS in the future depending on case-by-case approval by the state. WE AGREE ON THIS.

Nope. All they have to do is file within 60 days of commencement of testing. No approval needed.

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

3. The local police said an active driver would have failed in the same way as the ADS. WE AGREE ON THE FACT THAT THEY MADE THIS STATEMENT. However I think politics is driving this conclusion but lets put that aside for this post.

They have facts you do not.

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

4. When a driver is in place, the driver is responsible for adhering to local and federal motor vehicle laws. Point #2 above has zero impact on this.

Your so called Driver was most likely Passenger Sitting in Drivers Seat under March 1st Order.

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

5. The vehicle manufacturer and/or operator (not driver) may also be held responsible whether a driver is in place or not.

That’s always been the case.

However, this is not an issue in this tragedy.

[pz619]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

Again, all Law Enforcement has disagreed with you.

What’s the point?

Really??????

I guess you like chopping wood and restocking fireplace all night?

And building a fire every time you cook or want hot water to bath, which you get from the creek.

BTW, how are you on internet without electricity in your household?

Geez.

Not sure what point you are referencing about the law enforcement thing, but it doesn't really matter, I don't give a shit if law enforcement agrees with my opinion or not. Second to that I know what they said in their statement, and watching the video I do not agree with their assessment.

And yeah, what's the point of having tech that does a worse job than a person? Also comparing electricity and water services is not even remotely the same thing. You and I both know it.

If it works that's one thing, but clearly it doesn't otherwise we wouldn't be sitting here talking about how some poor woman got ran over. The technology isn't developed enough for public roads, so it shouldn't be on public roads.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by pz619

Not sure what point you are referencing about the law enforcement thing, but it doesn't really matter, I don't give a shit if law enforcement agrees with my opinion or not. Second to that I know what they said in their statement, and watching the video I do not agree with their assessment.

And yeah, what's the point of having tech that does a worse job than a person? Also comparing electricity and water services is not even remotely the same thing. You and I both know it.

If it works that's one thing, but clearly it doesn't otherwise we wouldn't be sitting here talking about how some poor woman got ran over. The technology isn't developed enough for public roads, so it shouldn't be on public roads.

Again, your opinion only counts online (like mine), not in the real world.

Those that matter have spoken.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

No, driver was passenger sitting in drivers seat

Nope. All they have to do is file within 60 days of commencement of testing. No approval needed.

They have facts you do not.

Your so called Driver was most likely Passenger Sitting in Drivers Seat under March 1st Order.

That's always been the case.

However, this is not an issue in this tragedy.

Wow. I think we actually found a point we agree on. What's next, peace in the Middle East?

It really is telling that we are now debating if the person in the drivers seat was a "driver" in this case. I guess your position is the 'passenger in the driver's seat' is under no legal responsibility to do anything?

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

Just watched the video from the car 5 times on a 75” Screen tv on nightly news.

1) person killed was not in any crosswalk. Double lane road with medians on both sides. Nothing on the other side of the road where crossing. Makes little sense why someone crossing there.

2) it was dark. And given the video, I suspect a driver would have hit her as well.

3) person killed was wearing black top and dark blue jeans. Only her head and blonde head stood out.

4) she clearly was at fault crossing in front of car for whatever reason

That said, any life loss is sad. Vehicle had lidar and radar. I wonder if it dismissed the return as she should not have been where she was.

Again, I doubt human would have not hit her, given the video.

Proving that this may make driving safer, but nothing can completely stop injuries when humans do dumb things.

https://usat.ly/2DLt9GW

Bottom line, I believe that coding should favor the vehicle occupant SHOULD THE CAR HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG. In this case, the death was the pedestrian’s fault.

While sad, don’t play chicken with a car, at night, in dark clothing while essentially “jaywalking”.

So you've basically said the pedestrian was in a position the autonomous machine's software didn't expect a pedestrian to be located. This proves the point that the autonomous machine is fallable. Had the pedestrian followed the law and not jaywalked the machine would have not hit her because she would have been in the crosswalk where the machine expects a street-crossing pedestrian to be.

The pedestrian expected the car to stop because most states have laws that require a car to stop if a pedestrian is crossing the street.

All this proves is the autonomous machine is fallable. The argument of "the human driver probably would have hit her too" is indifference to the argument FOR autonomous vehicles because they are supposed to be BETTER drivers than humans (that's the whole point of the technology).

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by pz619

The technology isn't developed enough for public roads, so it shouldn't be on public roads.

I'm okay with testing, but you have to be accountable for your failures! It is very concerning to see people (here and otherwise) actually discount safety concerns as if they're secondary.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

So you've basically said the pedestrian was in a position the autonomous machine's software didn't expect a pedestrian to be located. This proves the point that the autonomous machine is fallable. Had the pedestrian followed the law and not jaywalked the machine would have not hit her because she would have been in the crosswalk where the machine expects a street-crossing pedestrian to be.

The pedestrian expected the car to stop because most states have laws that require a car to stop if a pedestrian is crossing the street.

All this proves is the autonomous machine is fallable. The argument of "the human driver probably would have hit her too" is indifference to the argument FOR autonomous vehicles because they are supposed to be BETTER drivers than humans (that's the whole point of the technology).

Incorrect. Just the opposite in Arizona.

For last paragraph, already answered.

In the end, the technology should reduce accidents and deaths.

No technology is perfect either.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

Wow. I think we actually found a point we agree on. What's next, peace in the Middle East?

It really is telling that we are now debating if the person in the drivers seat was a "driver" in this case. I guess your position is the 'passenger in the driver's seat' is under no legal responsibility to do anything?

I’m not debating.

In this case, it’s the law.

You just don’t like the law.

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

I'm okay with testing, but you have to be accountable for your failures! It is very concerning to see people (here and otherwise) actually discount safety concerns as if they're secondary.

If this happened in lighted crosswalk, intersection, etc where victim was not in violation of multiple laws, I would agree with you.

Autonomous Car broke no laws in this instance. It obviously did malfunction.

But that malfunction was not a violation of any law.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

I'm not debating.

In this case, it's the law.

Can we not even agree on what "debating" is? You do realize people debate the law, right?
This is getting funny now.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

We can't even agree on what debating is? You do realize people debate the law right?
This is getting funny now.

No interest in debating hypotheticals.

Facts are Facts. The Law is the debate moderator.

The law is clear.

I’m posting facts. You are disagreeing because you do not like the facts.

That is your opinion and your right.

That doesn’t change the facts.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. No one is entitled to their own facts.

The facts have been posted in great detail after considerable research on the past 3 pages.

Anyone who is interested in truth and not opinion can reread them.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

No interest in debating hypotheticals.

Facts are Facts. The Law is the debate moderator.

The law is clear.

Help us understand the law esquire.

The "passenger in the driver's seat" is under no obligation to do anything?

[och]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

You have no evidence Driver was looking at phone and not at Vehicle Diagnostic screen in the self driving car, but continue to post this.

Regardless, without the video, what the driver was doing would be unknown.

In a normal situation, she could just claim she didn’t see victim as victim was dressed in dark clothes and darted out in front of her in an area one would not expect a pedestrian.

Whatever the hell the driver was looking at, he wasn't watching the road, and that is negligent and charges will follow. If Uber requires someone to monitor the diagnostics screen, they should hire a second occupant to do that.

Dark clothes is a moot point.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

Help us understand the law esquire.

The "passenger in the driver's seat" is under no obligation to do anything?

Correct. Read the law.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

Correct. Read the law.

Gladly. Provide us with the statute.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

Gladly. Provide us with the statute.

Asked and answered previously. Confirmed by another member.

Reread it.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by och

Whatever the hell the driver was looking at, he wasn't watching the road, and that is negligent and charges will follow. If Uber requires someone to monitor the diagnostics screen, they should hire a second occupant to do that.

Dark clothes is a moot point.

Under current law, person in passenger seat not required to do so, sono charges filed or most likely coming. Certainly no conviction if DA gets wild hair.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

Under current law, person in passenger seat not required to do so, sono charges filed or most likely coming. Certainly no conviction if DA gets wild hair.

Wait- so now you're not even willing to call the seat with the steering wheel and pedals the "driver's seat?" Very entertaining! :

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

Wait- so now you're not even willing to call the seat with the steering wheel and pedals the "driver's seat?" Very entertaining! :

There you do making up shit again. Just like you mistakenly did and posted about me Earlier today. Even proven wrong.

I am Citing the law.

Try it sometime.

That requires you to know it though.

Never said it wasn’t drivers seat. Under current laws that person was not necessarily the driver, but a passenger, especially in autonomous mode. As thus, they were in a passenger seat which just happened to be on front left.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

...[the Uber employee was] in a passenger seat which just happened to be on front left.

Hilarious! This just made my day. Thank you.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

No, I am making statement as Local Newspaper went out and examined site on Monday in great detail.

So the initial report from the SF chronicle that the car was speeding was not correct:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/business...e-12765481.php
"Traveling at 38 mph in a 35 mph zone on Sunday night, the Uber self-driving car made no attempt to brake, according to the Police Department’s preliminary investigation."
They way they write it, to me it reads that that was stated in the police report/investigation, but maybe you can read it multiple ways that the speeding is a speculation and that that only the statement that the car made no attempt to brake is taken from the police investigation (and the speed obviously, or that would be a really wild guess).
Does anyone have that actual official press release from the police they refer to, or is it only sent to newspapers and such? Would be interesting to see if the police actually stated that or that the SF chronicle made that up.
If the police really stated that to the press and it turns out not to be true, that would be a strange mistake.... Usually you come up with specifics (speeds etc) once they have been verified by the tech staff.
I only saw the media interview on fox, but there only "approximately 40mph" was mentioned. So I would like to know from which official statement/report did the sf chronicle get that 38mph and did that statement/report also say the car was speeding (or that the speedlimit was 35mph).

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

So the initial report from the SF chronicle that the car was speeding was not correct:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/business...e-12765481.php
"Traveling at 38 mph in a 35 mph zone on Sunday night, the Uber self-driving car made no attempt to brake, according to the Police Department’s preliminary investigation."
They way they write it, to me it reads that that was stated in the police report/investigation, but maybe you can read it multiple ways that the speeding is a speculation and that that only the statement that the car made no attempt to brake is taken from the police investigation (and the speed obviously, or that would be a really wild guess).

That has been established as incorrect and evidence posted multiple times.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

I'm sure there are other articles stating the same point but from "Can You Sue a Robocar?" in The Atlantic:

...the letter of the Arizona executive order seems to suggest that the human operator is on the hook for any traffic infractions while he or she is in the vehicle, even if it’s in fully autonomous mode. That means that an operator could, in theory, be charged with vehicular manslaughter—although the courts would inevitably have to adjudicate such a matter were the state to bring the charge. The whole situation is muddy and confused, and it might be impossible to understand it in the abstract, before legal precedent is set.

Maybe IK6SPEED Esq. can intervene and clear this whole "muddy and confused" thing up for everyone?