Posted on 03/21/2018 12:48:17 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
"The woman darted out, and the investigators, the cops said it wouldn’t have mattered if the human being in the car had total control over it, this woman would have not been missed. Nobody would have had a reaction time quick enough to avoid hitting her.”—Rush Limbaugh, The Tech Blogger Take on the Driverless Uber Crash
An interesting comment was made that driver’s thoughts may not have been on road as consequence of basically sitting for too long.
At Walmart all pedestrians have right of way, and it has made people less inclined to watch for traffic when leaving other stores.
THE WHOLE POINT OF THESE CARS WAS THAT IT WOULD KNOW THERE WAS A PEDESTRIAN NEARBY AND WOULD SLOW DOWN
JUST IN CASE.
IT HAS FAILED AT THAT TASK.
OR DID YOU GUYS FORGET ALL THAT BRAGGING ABOUT IT’S FAMILIARITY WITH ITS SURROUNDINGS??!
I wouldnt have hit her. She didn’t come from behind a ####ing tree.
Being HUMAN, i know HUMANS dont pay attention sometimes when they cross hte street and I would have slowed down.
Driving a cab 72 hours a week for years and no accident since I was 24, now 50, i am VERY confient i am a better driver than these “self driving” cars.
Did they test the TAILPIPE for alcohol?
Depending on what happened, it might be all her fault.
...
Basically, the police have already said that. She stepped right in front of the car. Neither the driver or the car had time to react. The driver never saw her. His first indication of the accident was the sound of the impact.
Shouting doesn’t make what you said not an abject lie. The point of these cars is that they don’t get tired, drunk, distracted, or angry, and are faster to react than humans. Slowing down for every pedestrian would make them a road hazard and is a terribly stupid idea.
Did car have time to brake and avoid hitting victim?
...
No. These cars still have to obey the laws of physics.
Trump of course. Did they even need to ask?
> the owner of the self-driving car is liable for any damages just as if the person was driving the car
Surely correct. I was always told, “one insures the car, not the driver.” And that is why you shouldn’t let non-family drive your car, because you, the owner, are liable. It is why some recommend not to have the car in joint husband/wife ownership, because if your wife incurs a huge liability driving a car solely in her name, then that can’t sue you for your jointly owned house.
Shouting doesn’t make what you said not an abject lie. The point of these cars is that they don’t get tired, drunk, distracted, or angry, and are faster to react than humans. Slowing down for every pedestrian would make them a road hazard and is a terribly stupid idea.
...
Ditto.
These cars still have to obey the laws of physics, and can’t compensate for every stupid thing that humans do.
Keep the cars off the road. Sadly people want to blame her, excuse it as she was or might have been homeless, had history of drugs, etc. Does not excuse Uber from running her down. What happens next when it is someone's kid on a bicycle after school or going to school?
Hit a pedestrian in CA, regardless of circumstances and your chances of being successfully sued are extremely good.
The reason for this is that most states’ negligence and traffic laws require drivers to be alert to what is around them and to pay attention to hazards in the road. A pedestrian certainly qualifies as a hazard in the road. In other words, drivers have a legal obligation to see and avoid what is there to be seen.”
...
Very true, but a driver isn’t expected by the law to yield to a pedestrian that darts in front of them.
The real question: Who can I sue?
Could it be the self-absorbed miss-thang walking her bike across the road, oblivious to the world around her?
I guess no one saw that coming...(RME) automated vehicles, people... I reckon once this pie-in-the-sky automation goes full tilt boogie, pedestrians/bicyclists will have devolved to something akin to a deer strike.
“I would think the owner of the self-driving car is liable for any damages just as if the person was driving the car.”
Does that apply to all products one may own that have faulty designs or faulty manufacturing? like if a faulty hot water heater you owned in your house blew up and killed some of your house guests?
Interesting legal theory. Consumers bear all liability for the faulty products they buy. I’m surprised lawyers even bother to sue companies anymore when everything is the fault of the buyer.
Global warming.
“By driving this car you agree to assume any and all liability. If you do not agree ..you do not drive.”
don’t you mean:
“By NOT driving this car you agree to assume any and all liability. If you do not agree ..you do NOT not drive.”
According to Google Maps street view and Bing street view images, the speed limit along that stretch is 45 MPH, not 35. I found the exact location yesterday, and backed up down the road until I saw a speed limit sign.
That's not to say it couldn't have changed since those images were taken, but it clearly shows 45 MPH being the limit at that time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.