Hacker News Reader

Comment by Jaruzel | Hacker News Reader

A related BBC article[1] states:

"A toxicology test carried out on Ms Herzberg after the accident returned positive results for methamphetamine and marijuana.

She did not look before crossing the road in a poorly lit area and was wearing dark clothes, the NTSB report says. And the reflectors and lights on her bike were at right-angles to the Uber car's path."

Even though, the self-driving software failed to recognise her, and also totally not excusing the lack of attention of the Uber driver, you cannot rule out that under normal circumstances with a non-automated car, the pedestrian would not have been hit.

Although this is a sad event, the pedestrian does carry a certain amount of blame here. It also shows that the biggest blocker to effective self driving vehicles is people, not technology.

---

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44243118

View on HN

What does it matter what drugs the woman hit by the car was on? It changes nothing about the case.

Looking at the video it's clear that at least some evasive action could have been taken by an attentive driver; at the least it should have been possible to hit the pedestrian at a lower speed. This article claims the car had six seconds to react (although I'm not sure what sense that's based on) and that the crash was avoidable if the operator had been paying attention, according to police.

Because drugs have side effects, which may have contributed to why she put herself in the position to be hit by a car that she probably should have seen.

But in this case we don't have to wonder about the circumstances; we know where the car and the pedestrian were and exactly what happened. Thus going into the toxicology report serves no real purpose other than unfairly casting aspersions on the person killed.

All of these reports take into account the intoxication of any parties involved. Not sure why it’s unfair to point out that the person illegally in the road was in a state that contributed to the accident. It’s not like she was just standing on the sidewalk minding her own business.

How did her "state" materially contribute to the accident?

"A toxicology test carried out on Ms Herzberg after the accident returned positive results for methamphetamine and marijuana."

You know. So what?

I always think it's especially galling when, for example a cop shoots a black teenager, the police departments spinmeisters immediately start to smear the victim.

As if smoking marijuana is a character fault and makes the victim implicitly a crook with low morals.

People on drugs tend to behave in erratic ways.

In the case of a jaywalker, this might be as simple as crossing with no warning when a sober person might not cross. Any driver (human or machine) should of course do their absolute best to avoid a collision, but whether or not that collision is avoidable is determined in part by the object you collide with.

In the case of violence by the police, somebody who is holding a weapon and behaving erratically is inherently more of a threat then somebody holding a weapon and complying.

There's nothing per-say "evil" about drugs, but somebody with meth in their system is a hell of a lot harder to predict then somebody sober, whether that's in terms of jaywalking or a violent confrontation.

When we evaluate situations, especially emotionally involving situations, we have to try and gather the totality of evidence.

"In the case of violence by the police, somebody who is holding a weapon and behaving erratically is inherently more of a threat then somebody holding a weapon and complying."

Except that in a lot of cases the victims were unarmed.

I recently took up martial arts, and after sparring a few times, I've learned that you do not need to be armed to be a threat. If somebody drives an elbow to the back of your head with force, you're going to the hospital. If somebody manages to get you in a clinch, you are likely going to pass out. If somebody manages to get you on the ground while they're standing - you better really hope they're content to walk away at that point because they can permanently mess you up for the rest of your life.

Any case of self defense needs to be evaluated by a court. I'm not suggesting police should get a free pass, but that somebody is unarmed does not mean they are not a lethal threat.

I wouldn't clame that all cop shootings are in bad faith by the cops. Sometimes violence is necessary (alas, it seems to happen in the US exponentially more often than in other developed countries).

But if you have a gun and the person that you target hasn't then threats as you describe them usually don't come to play.

It especially doesn't explain that cops shoot people into the back, when they very clearly pose no threat.

And they often used to get away with it would it not be for video.

And still victims are smeared.

You have a pistol pointed at someone who you perceive to be a threat. The person charges you from 30 feet away. Do you shoot them? Does that change if they have a knife? What if it's dark and they're holding something that seems like a knife but you're not sure?

Holding a gun doesn't make you immune to being injured or killed. Pointing a gun at someone doesn't always make them comply. A gun is a deadly weapon, but it's not a token of immunity and compliance. Shooting someone doesn't magically stop them or cause them to become a statue or a corpse.

> cops shoot people into the back

You're a police officer. You're called to investigate a violent rape by a suspect armed by a knife. The suspect runs and is quickly getting away. Do you:

1. Shoot them in the back

2. Let them escape and possibly rape someone else, hoping you catch them in the future

Neither of those is a good outcome and, just to make things more confusing, different states and departments have different rules in those situations.

> still victims are smeared

You can't know who the victim is until after the chips have landed. If someone gets shot by a police officer, they might have been an innocent person doing nothing wrong, or they might have been a violent predator who sexually assaults and murders kids for fun. When we're trying to assess that situation, you need all the evidence to come out - whether that hurts the cop (How many times have they used their weapons before? Do they have previous misconduct charges? Have they made racially charged statements previously?) or the person on the other side (Do they have a history of violence and crime? Are they a known felon? Were they on drugs?)

There are a few YouTube videos of use-of-force activists undergoing police training (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfi3Ndh3n-g) and one of the things that stands out to me is that they are very, very fast to pull the trigger compared to most police officers. That isn't to say their points are invalid, but it's easy to criticize from a sofa and it's a different thing to be in that fight-or-flight life-or-death moment of decision making.

Option 2. There is no other choice. Using lethal force against someone who does not pose an immediate threat is murder. It is never justifiable to shoot a fleeing suspect in the back.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule

> Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]

> People on drugs tend to behave in erratic ways.

This, however, is part of the problem.

She had traces of drugs _in her system_. Without knowing the amounts, you cannot say she was _under the influence_.

You can detect marijuana in the system several days after smoking a single joint. You're certainly not high at that point.

I'm not sure what the detection timeframe is for meth.

Certainly, if someone is _under the influence_ of a drug or drugs, that's one thing.

Similarly, I also work for Medic One in my area, training new EMTs. One of the perennial discussions is about being "altered", and consent, because we discuss implied consent in the context of intoxication. It has to be explained that just because someone has had one drink, does not impair them, or their ability to consent, and that tests more revolve around ability to comprehend consequences of decisions and actions. Simply put, I ask them, "You had a beer. Are you allowed to drive home?" "Yes, of course!" "So why would you not be allowed to make your own medical decisions?" "Ohhhh..."

Walking into traffic without paying attention and getting hit by a car is incredibly stupid. A sober person would be far less likely to do that.

Have you ever done anything stupid?

Sure, but fortunately nothing nearly stupid enough to get me killed.

The driver is at fault.

Yes, I’ve said the same as well. But to pretend like you don’t know why it’s significant that the victim was on meth is ridiculous. You have to be pretty fucked up to just walk in front of a car that even a blind person would know is coming

D.A.R.V.O.

Deny

Accuse

Reverse Victim and Offender

It’s a playbook that’s as old as people, and sadly it works, especially when there’s a significant power asymmetry at play.

That didn't happen.

And if it did, it wasn't that bad.

And if it was, that's not a big deal.

And if it is, that's not my fault.

And if it was, I didn't mean it.

And if I did...

You deserved it.

All of this is usually applied to narcissists, psychopaths and sociopaths, but it works equally well for immoral corporations.

Other videos show the area was not "poorly lit". That's only because of the potato cam video made available by uber personnel.

Why are we treating the jaywalking here with such a light touch? If the pedestrian had crossed at a crosswalk, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

Jaywalking shouldn't carry a death sentence.

If the car can't handle a jaywalker, it can't handle a toddler running into the street. That's a problem that shouldn't be hand-waved away.

100% agree. Whether we like it or not though, sometimes it does mean death--even with normal cars. That's why crosswalks are there in the first place.

Can a human driver handle those things?

I had a near-collision when I was headed to work one day. I was going the speed limit on a major four lane road. I noticed ahead of me that a car was stopped in a neighboring lane. It wasn't clear if it had broken down or what, so I started slowing down. Cue a group of kids jaywalking, and running in front of my car causing me to slam on my brakes.

Had I not seen or reacted to the already stopped car (or had it simply not been there), I probably could not have stopped in time. Not that I wouldn't have absolutely tried my best, but physics dictates that a compact SUV going at 45 mph doesn't come to a stop immediately.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't evaluate whether Uber seriously messed up and should face dramatic consequences - it certainly seems like they disabled a critical safety system that would of saved the pedestrians life.

Rather, we shouldn't make such grandiose statements like "Jaywalking shouldn't carry a death sentence" which don't really touch on the facts of the case. We should instead ask, "Did Uber's negligence cause this to result in a death when it shouldn't of been one?"

> Can a human driver handle those things?

I'll point out that in this case the crash was "entirely avoidable" according to the official police report.

One of the scenarios that sticks in mind from learning to drive in the UK is the bouncing ball. Drive through residential area, ball bounces out in front, you immediately go for the brakes because there's a good chance there's a kid chasing it.

Does Uber do that? Does any of the more advanced systems (lidar, radar etc) do that?

If the car didn't detect and stop for a jaywalking pedestrian, how can we be sure it would have detected a pedestrian in a crosswalk under the same conditions?

Because this is an entirely possible scenario in a country that self driving cars might operate in where jaywalking is not an offence.

Have you seen the overhead picture of the area in question? There's a path through the median that she was crossing from. If they didn't want people to cross there, the median should be designed differently.

This was normal conditions.

1 the road was NOT poorly lit

2 self-driving software recognized obstacle just fine, but was programmed to DO NOTHING

Reply on news.ycombinator.com