To: Alberta's Child
There's no question that the pedestrian is primarily at fault here -- probably a minimum of 60% liable if this were a case in litigation. Oh I imagine Uber's going to get taken to the cleaners in litigation over this. As I said on another thread, I'll be some "suit" at Uber decided that FLIR wasn't worth the expense to include in a self-driving car. Had it had one, the vehicle probably would have detected the bicycle-lady well before she stepped in its path and avoided hitting her.
Well, now Uber may go under as a result of this.
30 posted on
03/22/2018 10:14:41 AM PDT by
COBOL2Java
(The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen)
To: COBOL2Java
I think you're being a little dramatic there.
Even if Uber is found to be 100% at fault in this case, how much do you think will actually be paid out in damages? I wouldn't even assume that their liability would exceed their insurance cap.
The long-term prospects of "self-driving" vehicles will suffer more than Uber does as a result of this.
34 posted on
03/22/2018 10:17:21 AM PDT by
Alberta's Child
("I saw a werewolf drinking a pina colada at Trader Vic's.")
To: COBOL2Java
Well, now Uber may go under as a result of this.
Maybe it should since it looks like they put the expense of their technology (LIDAR) over the safety of pedestrians and bike riders.
35 posted on
03/22/2018 10:17:42 AM PDT by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: COBOL2Java
139 posted on
03/22/2018 4:19:47 PM PDT by
outofsalt
(If history teaches us anything it's that history rarely teaches us anything.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson