Hacker News Reader

Comment by goodluckchuck | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, the problem isn’t that they weren’t paying attention, or that they weren’t even trying, but that they where intentionally NOT paying attention.

That said, I don’t think this gets Uber off the hook. If I were on a jury, I’d likely say Uber was guilty of manslaughter (barring a real look at the evidence).

View on HN

> That said, I don’t think this gets Uber off the hook

There is exceptional negligence on their part. The fact that vehicle was just blithely travelling the posted speed limit, even at night, even though the speed violated it's assured clear ahead ability, is a damning point. The vehicle will operate unsafely in it's default configuration.

And for that reason you have a driver there who should have taken over.

Did this person know he should have taken over when the car was respecting the speedlimit but still going faster than it should have been going? I go the speedlimit at night as well. But here in Belgium where there's so much street-lighting it might as well be day

How much slower was the car supposed to go for it's sensors and was it all the guys responsibility even if he knew Uber apparently disabled the auto-braking due to issues and didn't pause roadtests?

> Did this person know he should have taken over when the car was respecting the speedlimit but still going faster than it should have been going?

Yeah, and how was the driver even supposed to know how fast the car should have been driving? I know how fast I should driving because I know how far I can see, but the car had LIDAR / Radar / night vision / etc. If the speed limit is 45MPH and the car is going 45MPH, what reason did the driver have to think that the car couldn't see? Either the driver can rely on the car to "see" or they can't.

Honestly if I’d been given the job of babysitting a self driving car, the same thing could have easily happened to me. I’d get bored out of my mind and unintentionally pull out my phone & start browsing Reddit before I caught myself. It’s a shit, soul sucking job to actively do nothing.

You can listen to audiobooks -- if your job is to be a backup driver keep your eyes on the road.

I know that cars is the most probable cause of sudden death/injury so I wouldn't do that. How can you 'unintentionally' pull out a phone?

I'd probably be looking at the road all the time, but just freeze at that moment where I'd need to take over.

> How can you 'unintentionally' pull out a phone?

Probably more like "absent mindedly" pull out a phone.

Absent mindedly is closer. Whatever you call reaching for something out of habit with thinking about it.

Habitually

But you did not work there. There are people who would very easily do this job. If she knew she couldn't concentrate, she shouldn't have taken the job and the risks involved.

Employees taking jobs they're unqualified for is a known problem. Reasons might include ignorance, hubris, financial need, greed. Employers need oversight systems to ensure employees are performing their jobs adequately, especially in safety critical roles.

Let's say you were working as a lifeguard at a swimming pool. Would you also unintentionally pull out your phone after a couple of hours?

If you did and someone drowned in the mean while, there would be no debate about who was liable.

Through, lifeguards at a swimming pool in are typically not expected to be attentive for hours. They rotate and switch.

Even if they’re not, you wouldn’t allow them watching a video on their phone

And they're not allowed, and (as other commenters say elsewhere in the thread) there's another person on the floor whose job is to ensure lifeguards' attention doesn't drift off. That's how you design safe systems: defense in depth.

That's the difference between a system designed to keep people alive and a system designed to do the least possible work to avoid liability.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com