SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A self-driving Uber SUV struck and killed a pedestrian in Tempe, Arizona. It was in autonomous mode at the time of the collision, with a vehicle operator behind the wheel. Uber has suspended testing of its self-driving cars.
http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/19/technology/uber-autonomous-car-fatal-crash/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/uber-driverless-fatality.html
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/self-driving-uber-kills-arizona-171055918.html
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/19/594950197/uber-suspends-self-driving-tests-after-pedestrian-is-killed-in-arizona
https://www.wsj.com/articles/uber-suspends-driverless-car-program-after-pedestrian-is-struck-and-killed-1521480386
https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/19/17139518/uber-self-driving-car-fatal-crash-tempe-arizona
https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/19/uber-self-driving-test-car-involved-in-accident-resulting-in-pedestrian-death/
I couldn't find any good analysis of the liability situation here.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by vux984 on Wednesday March 21 2018, @10:29PM
Wow, yeah... I mean, it's still clear the pedestrian shouldn't be there. But talk about setting things up to fail. And I find it ever less convincing that a human driver would ever found completely faultless for striking a pedestrian walking there, without so much as attempting to brake. It's just wide open. The pedestrian was walking. Its not like they were hiding behind a truck and jumped out in front of traffic to try and commit suicide.
The pedestrian has responsibility too; they aren't innocent but the driver/vehicle should have had some time to react.
But I just don't see how uber could get a complete walk on this; even if they weren't charged for the accident (which I'd understand; lots of accidents end without charges -- accidents happen and I'm not at the point of saying uber was criminally malicious or negligent); but you'd think in terms of insurance they'd have at least some liability.