Uber driver was streaming Hulu just before self-driving car crash: police report
reuters.com
reuters.com
I can't fully fault the driver here. It's the system.
Uber will of course claim that the driver's specific job was to ensure safety of passengers and pedestrians while putting the bulk of the responsibility on Vasquez. The blame ratios in this case are way over 1.
Why is it important that we [[know this]] ?
> Herzberg, [[who was homeless]], was walking her bicycle across the street,
I feel like I am supposed to care less with this fact.
Because we are supposed to believe that the life of a homeless has somehow less value than any other human life and/or that probably (because she was homeless) she was a bit nuts and acted recklessly or however without the same attention/carefulness that is proper for non-homeless (please read as "normal") people.
It is easy to see the "hey, but she unlawfully and suddenly crossed the road at a location other than a marked crosswalk" sort of defense by Uber (besides putting the blame on Vasquez).
BTW, it doesn't seem to exist "full" evidence Vasquez was actually watching the streaming, I mean, maybe (just maybe) she was just listening to it, like anyone would listen to the radio or a playing MP3 while driving.
The first thing I would make compulsory would be a sort of heads-up display, so that there couldn't be any possible reason why a driver would actually look down for 5 seconds.
It could be the author trying to make you care less, but there's little reason to assume that and it's counter to what journalism is about.
It could also be the author drawing attention to the fact that we're a society trying to solve letting rich people watch TV while their car drives before everyone else has basic needs. But this is also not their job outside of an editorial. (However, I'm free to bring it up here.)
Most likely it's neither. Journalists are descriptive. Being homeless stands out because it's dramatic and outside of most people's experience.