Yakk wrote:To me, the burden of responsibility from killing an unarmed someone with a car or a gun or a knife is so high that talking about how the person killed was "taking risks" is bullshit. You are using a highly lethal tool, it is on you not to kill people with it. If your gun range has downrange unlocked doors that say "do not enter", it is on you if someone opens them and walks into your line of fire. If someone jaywalks in front of you and you hit them, if a biker hits a pot hole and falls under your wheels, if the knife slips out of your graps and cuts a dinner party guest -- it is on you.
These are lethal tools, treat them with respect, and if you cannot, stop using them. Have some responsibility for your actions.
There is a responsibility to use dangerous things with care, yes. But it is not so great as to cover every eventuality. If you're driving down the road, and a biker hits a pot hole and suddenly changes course to fall under your wheels, you have not done anything negligent. The action causing the incident is on the biker. Now, sure, we're all going to try to avoid that biker if we can, but ultimately the biker has accepted risk by choosing this action, and it was his action that led to his death. Nobody else coerced him into making that choice, or into hitting that pot hole.
It'd also be fair to advocate, say, better pothole repair on general principles, but that isn't something the auto driver is responsible for.
The driver has responsibility for his actions. The biker has responsibility for his. Lethality might change the choices made, but it doesn't absolve the biker of responsibility for himself.
ucim wrote:Let's see now... the car was speeding (a crime), and the driver was not looking where she was going (a crime) - it looked to me like she was not paying attention at all.Dauric wrote:the "victim" did indeed cause the incident by being excessively careless (and in California by crossing not at the crosswalk was breaking the law).
The car was evidently not speeding. The car was travelling 40 mph in a 45 mph zone. That's not excessively careless. Source: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/20/us/self-driving-uber-pedestrian-killed.html
The driver ought to have been paying more attention, sure. However, given that there was less than a second where the pedestrian was visible to the cameras, even an attentive driver may not have responded in time. Additionally, some degree of inattentiveness is probably going to happen when watching a robot for hours at a time.
If you're staying strictly to legality, then the pedestrian, as a jaywalker, was definitely at least partially at fault. It's illegal, of course.
It was also late at night, and crossing a poorly lit area with quite a few lanes of traffic(five at the position the body was found). The Uber was not especially close to the curb. Sometimes pedestrians cross the road heedless of traffic, counting on others to stop, slow, or avoid them. Realistically, I'm not gonna tell you to never jaywalk. It happens, just as speeding does. But when you do so, you need to be aware of traffic, and be cautious. The world cannot be made completely safe, there's got to be at least some onus on the individual to be sensible about when they're skirting laws/safety practices.
Also, yeah, the McDonalds one is a good example of a counter-intuitive result. At an initial reading, it does sound quite ridiculous, but once you find out the details, it is indeed pretty logical.