| ▲ | xhkkffbf 2 hours ago |
| The bad guy here is the driver. Could Uber have done more? That's what the arbitrators concluded. But the reality is that this is a victory for the driverless cars (Waymo, Tesla, etc.). If you want to force Uber to take responsibility for the driver, the simplest thing is to get rid of the driver. |
|
| ▲ | sandeepkd 31 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| Yes the driver made a poor decision in a situation that he was not trained for. However enrolling and onboarding the driver is a part of Uber's process. The situation may have been avoided if Uber had this strict clause in its onboarding manual to never stop the car or drop the passenger at unsafe spot. The driver and rider are bound by the Uber negotiated contract atleast until the end of ride. On the driverless cars, the chances are that the companies would come up with some innovative legal clause to add to their terms and services to avoid taking any liability from the driverless car's action. |
| |
| ▲ | randyrand 22 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > The situation may have been avoided if Uber had this strict clause in its onboarding manual to never stop the car or drop the passenger at unsafe spot. You think they don't? | | |
|
|
| ▲ | c22 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This sounds about right. When Uber's driverless car killed someone they got off pretty easy: *"In March 2019, Arizona prosecutors ruled that Uber was not criminally responsible for the crash. The back-up driver of the vehicle was charged with negligent homicide, pled guilty to endangerment, and was sentenced to three years' probation." [0] 0:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Elaine_Herzberg |
| |
| ▲ | nextaccountic 44 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | So.. there's a driver in driverless cars. A fall guy that will take all the blame should the company needs to produce someone to be arrested, but don't otherwise have leverage to earn a decent living | | |
| ▲ | gruez 41 minutes ago | parent [-] | | >So.. there's a driver in driverless cars. A fall guy that will take all the blame should the company needs to produce someone to be arrested Are you seriously pretending the driver doesn't have agency here? This accident was easily preventable by the safety driver, which makes the "fall guy" characterization misleading. Sure, maybe there was some risk of complacency, but what's the alternative? Should uber have gone full workplace surveillance and have a camera trained on the safety driver's face, to make sure she was paying attention? | | |
| ▲ | stefan_ 22 minutes ago | parent [-] | | But.. they did have that? What a bizarre argument. And yes, if you make software that drives the car, release it into public traffic, and then your software runs someone over that would be plainly visible to a reasonable human driver (the misleading dashcam footage you release to make it seem way too dark [to a shitty dashcam sensor] notwithstanding) - you should absolutely bear responsibility! How is that even a question? You did that! Not whoever you put there as a "safety driver". We can adjudicate their responsibility separately, but it's certainly not 100%. |
|
| |
| ▲ | gruez 42 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | >When Uber's driverless car killed someone they got off pretty easy: The driverless car that very much had a safety driver, which got distracted because she was watching TV shows on her phone? | | |
| ▲ | chadgpt8 27 minutes ago | parent [-] | | How well would you handle being paid to do nothing without distractions, 8 hours every day? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | joshstrange an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > The bad guy here is the driver. We can agree that the driver made bad choices but I feel like you are skimming over the 2 women's responsibility in this situation. Intoxicated to the point of vomiting, arguing over the cleaning fee, and wandering away from the car while parked, yes illegally, on the freeway. Not sure what your experiences have been with drunk people but I can tell you that dealing with 1 drunk person can be hard to control, let alone 2. I'd be interested to hear where other people draw the line on the driver's culpability. If he left them at a gas station and one of them was still hit and killed by a car would he still be at fault? In my mind Uber/Lyft provide transportation, they aren't babysitters, there has to be a limit to their responsibility. Perhaps the driver was more at fault here but this outcome (how the driver reacted) is not in the slightest bit surprising to me given everything I know about Uber and how it treats drivers and passengers. |
| |
| ▲ | boomboomsubban an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Dropping them off at a gore is basically throwing them in the middle of the highway, many of them don't have easy access to a safe location without crossing the highway. The court itself said taking the nearby exit would have allowed him to drop them off at a safe location. Yes, they could have injured themselves after that, but it's not the same. | |
| ▲ | SirSavary an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Why don’t you read the case in question before wildly speculating as to the responsibilities of a rideshare driver? You can’t dump your passengers on the freeway, for any reason. It’s not safe for them or for the other drivers on the road. | | |
| ▲ | joshstrange an hour ago | parent [-] | | I did read it. In fact, I read a good bit of the PDF, not just the wiki. There are a lot of unanswered questions, and the PDF admits that. No one can seem to agree on exactly what happened or the sequence of events. What’s not in question is that the two women were extremely intoxicated to the point of vomiting on themselves. The PDF alleges that one of the women shouted that there was an emergency, which is what originally caused the driver to pull over where he did. It’s still not clear to me how much of this was the driver forcing them out and leaving them, and how much was they got out, refused to pay the cleaning fee, and so he just left them. We aren’t getting clear views of what happened at all from the two people left alive. | | |
| ▲ | fragmede 37 minutes ago | parent [-] | | What we can ask, however, is why isn't there a worldwide " I need help" button? Doesn't matter what your problem is, of what variety, you need help. The driver could have rang that, either of the women could have. Instead, one of the three people are dead. Oh well. | | |
| ▲ | crazygringo 19 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't understand. What would such a button have done? If somebody needed help, the driver may very well have to decided to stop ASAP, at the same gore point, and the women could have then chosen to immediately get out, and one of them would have gotten killed. Literally nothing would have changed. Indeed, it sounds like one of the women was shouting there was an emergency, so the driver stopped. That is effectively "I need help". What would your button do any differently? | |
| ▲ | joshstrange 29 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | I’m not at all trying to downplay Uber’s responsibly here, I also am not pretending the driver is not at fault, however everyone seems to want to put the full/majority of the blame on the driver while reserving a bit for Uber as well. This whole subthread posits that self-driving cars would solve this (I find that laughable). My point is: where do we draw the line? Intoxicated people are going to act irrationally and at what point does “low paid person who shuttles people from point A to point B” become responsible for the actions of their riders? It’s still unclear how much of this was “forced out of the car” and “got out to argue and refused to get back in”, the timeline of events is incredibly muddy (as the linked PDF agrees) and having dealt with very intoxicated people I can easily imagine the challenges the driver (who doesn’t appear to speak English well or at all given they needed a translator in the arbitration) faced dealing with 2 drunk and irrational passengers. Let me be crystal clear, I don’t at all think “oh well, someone died”. But attacking the driver isn’t going to fix the system that caused this. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | LorenPechtel 34 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The problem here is where he stopped. Since when would you consider letting anyone out at a gore point?! General rule is your skill takes someone into hazard, you are expected to get them back out of hazard. In this case, they're drunk--traffic is a hazard. Gore points are not supposed to be occupied at all, let alone let out passengers there. I question the $20M, but I have no problem at all with finding fault. | | |
| ▲ | joshstrange 20 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The linked PDF says the driver alleges that one of the passengers yelled there was an emergency which is why he pulled over where he did, that “fact” is contested and we will probably never know exactly what happened. But I’m not ready to buy into “driver forced them out at a gore point” given everything I’ve read. I agree that was the final outcome, they were left there, but I can come up with a number of scenarios (some backed by the driver’s testimony) in where the driver isn’t quite the monster some people in this thread want to make them out to be. I’ve had personal experience dealing with drunk people in my car, it doesn’t take much imagination to see how you would get to this point. And that was with drunk people I knew, and mostly liked, not strangers. Drunk people do not normally act logically, especially if they are to the point of throwing up on themselves due to their level of intoxication. |
| |
| ▲ | jester997 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If you don’t punish the corporation they won’t ensure they vet their employees and have strict policies and procedures around handling customers. So in my mind the driver was at fault criminal negligence, but when the driver can be any untrained pleb with a phone, the company assumes the risk and should be held liable. | | |
| ▲ | joshstrange an hour ago | parent [-] | | I’m not at all opposed to Uber getting slapped. I just think that “the driver is the bad guy” is incredibly reductionist and absolves Uber of the responsibility that I think we both agree that hold. | | |
| ▲ | jester997 an hour ago | parent [-] | | The driver IS the bad guy. Any driver who stops and forces their customers onto a freeway doesn’t know how to drive, let alone shuttle people around for money. They would rather put people at risk than spend an hour cleaning their car. This is practically the definition of criminal negligence. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | mcmcmc 40 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | If you’re a taxi driver you have a duty of care not to dump your passengers on the side of a freeway where pedestrians aren’t allowed. Same with a railroad crossing | | |
| ▲ | joshstrange 26 minutes ago | parent [-] | | And if you stop the car because a passenger was yelling there was an emergency? If your passengers refuse to get back in the car and wander off? The “facts” of this event are highly contested and not at all clear. I’m not saying what I typed above is what happened, but it’s just as likely as the other scenarios presented. The linked PDF acknowledges this and presents a few of the conflicting statements made by the surviving passenger and the driver. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | josefx an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > The bad guy here is the driver. Could Uber have done more? Isn't their entire business model build around bypassing the regulations build around the taxi industry? Things like training for new drivers and I think they even refused to do mandatory background checks early on. > If you want to force Uber to take responsibility for the driver, the simplest thing is to get rid of the driver. When their driverless car ran over a cyclist they pretended it was too dark to see anything, using a video from a cheap camera as "evidence". |
| |
|
| ▲ | emmelaich 6 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| And surely the DMV has far greater 'vicarious liability', as they're the ones that issue licenses. |
|
| ▲ | pixl97 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There was no world in which driverless cars weren't the eventual outcome anyway. And, it's not exactly taking responsibility for the driver. It's taking responsibility for the safety of the passenger using their service. This is a different thing. Driverless cars still can't allow their passengers to get injured and killed which is going to present a lot of technical and social challenges for these companies. They all thought that playing a word game would get them out of the difficult problems all transportation companies have to solve and be liable for. |
|
| ▲ | gamblor956 12 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| A company is liable for the actions of its workers whether they are W2 employees or 1099 independent contractors. That distinction governs the relationship between the worker and the company, not the company and its customers. A worker's criminal actions also usually do not entail criminal liability for the company except in very rare situations. |
|
| ▲ | OutOfHere an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Uber is bad too for not training drivers to not do something like this. |
| |
| ▲ | m00x an hour ago | parent [-] | | I've driven busses and I was never trained not to do this. This falls under common sense. | | |
| ▲ | orwin 23 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | (in my country, to get a bus driver license, you have to go through training that explain how to act in weird situation, how to identify dangers and which danger to prefer. You have a whole hour about always stopping at a safe place (parking, bus stop, red lignt, stop sign) before getting involved with anything that happen inside) | |
| ▲ | OutOfHere 9 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In the US, in employment, there is no such thing as common sense. People come from diverse backgrounds. When you have a million employees, anything is possible as as an untrained baseline. Everything has to be trained. | |
| ▲ | mcmcmc 38 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Maybe not common sense, but if you have a drivers license you should absolutely know it |
|
|
|
| ▲ | singleshot_ an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > If you want to force Uber to take responsibility for the driver, the simplest thing is to get rid of the driver. No. The easiest thing to do would be arbitrate against uber. Deploying a fleet of self driving cars would be much, much more complicated. |
|
| ▲ | CPLX an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > If you want to force Uber to take responsibility... the simplest thing is... To use the force of law and government to force them to take responsibility. Every other answer is bullshit. |
|
| ▲ | applfanboysbgon 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Do you expect that Waymo will not take responsibility for the driverless car? |
|
| ▲ | calvinmorrison 36 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Cars are an amazing way to shift liability around. Try to start your own rail line, good luck. Have 10,000 drivers with 10,000 accidents? no problem. |
|
| ▲ | redsocksfan45 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [dead] |
|
| ▲ | phyzix5761 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You all realize that when AI takes everyone's jobs the only way people will survive is by pledging allegiance to AI companies so they feed and house them right? Its not going to lead to some utopia where people are free to paint and write novels all day. People will basically become slaves to these companies. I would think twice about pushing for driverless cars and replacing people with agentic workflows. |
|
| ▲ | jlongr 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| There's this prevailing narrative that someday self-driving cars will eliminate all human-controlled driving and that these types of stories are like milestones in the path to that future utopia. But I don't think that's the case anymore than the narrative that LLMs will eventually displace all software engineers. |
| |
| ▲ | ggreer an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | The invention of the automobile didn't eliminate all horses, but it certainly replaced the vast majority of horses. In 7 years we've gone from GPT-2 to Fable and Astra. There seems to be no sign of slowdown, except from the top AI labs who want to slow down out of caution. It would be incredibly surprising to me if in another 7 years, my software engineering skills were still useful. AI capabilities will get to the point where even the best human is adding noise to the system, similar to today's chess engines and calculators. Self-driving cars will take longer to roll out because they require new hardware and changes to laws, but I don't see how a career such as "truck driver" or "cab driver" exists in 20 years. At most it would be for a few niche uses and tourism novelty (similar to steam locomotives or horse-drawn buggies). | | |
| ▲ | eru an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I mostly agree. However, I do actually think that many of the skills you use as a software engineer will still be useful in 7 years. It's just that, as you suggest, no one will let us near any actual code. | |
| ▲ | htrp an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | >It would be incredibly surprising to me if in another 7 years, my software engineering skills were still useful This profession has always required reskilling/ changing based on new technologies. How many people are still meaningfully employed as pascal programmers? | | |
| ▲ | ggreer 26 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Almost every career requires staying on top of new developments to remain competitive. Even mechanics must learn about new systems in vehicles to be able to repair them. Not many people are still meaningfully employed as Model T mechanics. The difference with LLMs is that they are a substitute for more general cognitive skills. Right now they are also a complement (using them increases the productivity of humans writing software), but it's only a matter of time before they improve to the point where they fully substitute. And it seems quite likely that the timeline for that is significantly shorter than my remaining career. If you are confident that there will be specific tasks that LLMs can't accomplish in 2033, I'm happy to entertain such ideas. But considering the current rate of progress, I can't think of anything like that. |
|
| |
| ▲ | eru an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Self-driving cars and trucks will eliminate human-controlled driving in the same way that engines (ICE, electric, steam, whatever) have eliminated human and animal powered transportation. Yes, there are a few people around who ride horses, have an ox-cart or pedal their own bikes, but in a commercial sense, those are rounding errors. Compilers have already replaced software engineers producing native code by hand. (Apart from a handful of exceptions.) LLMs will and do have a similar impact one level higher. I'm really, really happy when I see my less technical friends suddenly vibe-code things they have dreamed up! | | |
| ▲ | throwaway85825 an hour ago | parent [-] | | And when will the self driving car be able to orthogonal park a trailer by backing down and alley? | | |
| ▲ | eru an hour ago | parent [-] | | I don't know what that means. But presumably you are talking about some difficult technical feat that one can perform with a vehicle? I'm fairly sure, if it's something mechanical and a human can do it, the computers won't be far behind. But even if not, we can redesign the vehicles to make it easier for a computer, eg we can make all axes or even all wheels independently steerable and control their velocity individually. A human would be overwhelmed with that, they can barely keep hold of a steering wheel, but a computer wouldn't mind too much. | | |
| ▲ | throwaway85825 33 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Not difficult just an edge case with a more questionable value proposition for implementation. Yes I considered independent wheels but a basic trailer is $3k, which doesn't leave much room for anything complicated. The point is there's a million of these edge cases for which autonomy will not economically compete for another hundred years. |
|
|
|
|