Live data from Hacker News

Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

techcrunch.com

441–445 of 445 posts

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#441
post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I talked about "lawyers" because I don't know which part of Uber is responsible for damage control and would carefully vet all public statements in such scenarios. I assume it's the legal dept. because that's my understanding of procedures in the place I worked at. The facts are that: 1. The dashcam video is highly misleading, as many people assumed that the accident would have been hard for a human to avoid based on…

> which part of Uber is responsible for damage control Damage control typically falls in the realm of public relations, not legal. Legal can help inform PR on what to say, but then again, so can any other relevant department, including engineering. > Uber sat silent for 50 days I was under the impression this was by request from NTSB. I mean, even your own criticism is that the dashcam video being released prematurel…

>I mean, even your own criticism is that the dashcam video being released prematurely caused the public at large to reach inaccurate conclusions.

That is correct.

>BTW, the comment you linked to seems pretty representative of the general response to the video: "yes it looks dark, but Lidar should've seen her"

LIDAR is the red herring here. The less crappy camera would have seen her. The naked eye would have seen her. Pretty much anything but that dashcam would. Even the dashcam, perhaps, if it was set to higher exposure.

And that was someone who knows about LIDAR talking - most of people don't know what a LIDAR is. And so a lot of people really accepted the "it was dark" line of reasoning, never stopping to think that it would simply imply that Uber was driving beyond its headlights.

>I was under the impression this was by request from NTSB... Investigations take time.

Right, that's where "cutting Uber some slack" comes in. It can't feasibly take 50 days to come to the following conclusion: "we screwed up here, the pedestrian clearly shows up on vehicle cameras/sensors the moment she steps into the roadway" - which seems to be the case here (again, even now, we can't say that for sure!).

I can't blame Uber for not admitting fault - it's in their interest to do so. I do blame the city and the general public for letting Uber get away with that, and creating an overall victim-blaming sentiment (which was there from day 1 - including searching the public records of the victim).

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#442
post #439
post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A "fantastic lawyer" will have someone competent at ground zero in 45 minutes Gonna be honest, that sounds like something straight out of a hollywood movie. In reality, when suddenly presented with a unexpected event, real people simply aren't physically able to coordinate narrative-altering eloquence training so perfectly on a 30 minute notice close to midnight on some random day. That's kinda like saying that if…

If they are doing a self driving car pilot, it would be stupid not to have some junior legal staff in the same or nearby county. The senior lawyer just calls the junior staff (who are always potentially on the clock when it comes to that type of work) and says "get your ass down there!" That doesn't seem like a Hollywood movie to me, that just seems like the way competent people operate.

Again, the whole notion seems completely misinformed. It would be ridiculously wasteful to have junior lawyers sit around in a completely different office from HQ just in case something happened.

And if you ever do on-call, you need a rotation system. In my team, on-call rotates among 9 people, none of which is required to get their ass anywhere in the wee hours of the night even if the world is ending. Requiring such commitment on top of a regular workload is completely unrealistic, and the notion that it actually got carried out as efficiently as could be is borderline wishful thinking. The alternative is shiftwork, which is fundamentally incompatible with the nature of the legal industry, and thus doesn't actually happen.

What's more, talking with the police is not a skill that is cultivated by corporate lawyers at all, or any lawyer for that matter, especially if we're talking about a 911 call.

Perhaps another obvious indication that uber would be unable to deploy SWAT-style legal teams is the number of outages they experience and their durations, despite having literally hundreds of highly paid engineers on call who are able to rollback bad deploys from their phones.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#443
post #442
post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they are doing a self driving car pilot, it would be stupid not to have some junior legal staff in the same or nearby county. The senior lawyer just calls the junior staff (who are always potentially on the clock when it comes to that type of work) and says "get your ass down there!" That doesn't seem like a Hollywood movie to me, that just seems like the way competent people operate.

Again, the whole notion seems completely misinformed. It would be ridiculously wasteful to have junior lawyers sit around in a completely different office from HQ just in case something happened. And if you ever do on-call, you need a rotation system. In my team, on-call rotates among 9 people, none of which is required to get their ass anywhere in the wee hours of the night even if the world is ending. Requiring suc…

You've convinced me you understand the situation better and are likely right- I stand corrected.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fairly sure the hook turn isn’t about safety, it’s about traffic flow. If it’s about safety it would be see more usage across the world

Its used in denmark Australia etc anywhere with sufficient bike lanes or of the intersection is reallt large

No In Australia it’s for the benefit of the tram https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hook_turn the article seems to imply it’s otherwise for traffic flow and 1 country for the benefit of cyclists

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#445
post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the train is on tracks.

That doesn't change the fact that pedestrians are still far more agile than cars. (Anyone else want to explain the downvotes?)

Don't be absurd. Some pedestrians are Usain Bolt and some pedestrians are Stephen Hawking.
Post reply on HN