Uber Settles With Family of Woman Killed By Self-Driving Car, Avoids Lawsuit (arstechnica.com)

It appears that Uber won't go to court to settle a lawsuit after one of its self-driving cars killed a woman in Tempe, Arizona earlier this month. An anonymous Slashdot reader shares a report from Ars Technica: Uber has reached a settlement with the family of the woman killed by an Uber self-driving car. Uber reached the settlement with the daughter and husband of Elaine Herzberg, who died at age 49 after being hit by the Uber vehicle in Tempe, Arizona. The settlement presumably includes a cash payment, but no details were provided by either Uber or the family's attorney. "The matter has been resolved," said Christina Perez Hesano, an attorney for Herzberg's family, according to reports by Reuters and NPR.

Comments

needs to go to criminal court

[Joe_Dragon]

needs to go to criminal court

Re:needs to go to criminal court

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. The crime should be a post-humorous guilty for the idiot that jaywalked and won the Darwin award.

Re:needs to go to criminal court

[paulpach]

needs to go to criminal court

What's the point? The jaywalker is dead already, filing criminal changes against her won't accomplish anything.

Re:needs to go to criminal court

[Rick Schumann]

Yes, it does, if for no other reason than to establish precedent for the next time this happens (and it WILL, don't doubt it). There needs to be a paper trail of liability starting NOW, so when it's finally determined that these pseudo-intelligent machines aren't up to the task, it'll be easier to ban them.

Re:needs to go to criminal court

[quantaman]

needs to go to criminal court

Criminal and civil liability are different. The family settling doesn't mean Uber won't face charges.

On the other hand, even if Uber escaped criminal consequences they could still lose a civil trial.

Re:needs to go to criminal court

[amicusNYCL]

It seems like everyone except you knows that these cars, like literally every other computer, are only capable of doing what they were programmed to do (and, even then, only if every part of the system is working). It also seems like everyone except you also understands that progress is going to continue, there are multiple competing technologies or companies, and that progress is going to reduce the overall rate of deaths from car accidents at some point in the future. Just because we aren't at that point yet is no reason to issue some sort of blanket ban.

Re: needs to go to criminal court

[Anonymous Coward]

Just jaywalking doesn't get a driver off the hook if they weren't taking reasonable precautions to avoid running over unforeseen obstacles.

In this case she had already crossed multiple lanes and was almost past the lane the uber cat was in.

The vehicle was being operated in a reckless and irresponsible way that outstripped the ability of the human driver to keep it under control.

Of nobody goes to prison over this, then why would any of these companies worry about safety.

Re:needs to go to criminal court

[brunes69]

Have you seen the dashcam footage?

Please explain the liability here. No human on earth could have prevented this woman from being killed in this situation.

She had a death wish and/or was incredibly stupid.

Re:needs to go to criminal court

[AaronW]

Upon watching the video closely and looking at the exact spot the accident happened with Google Street view, there is no way this accident should have happened. While the video doesn't show the woman in the distance, I believe she should have been clearly visible since there are two street lights close to where she was crossing. The dynamic range of the dashcam video is poor so the darker areas which would clearly be visible to a human driver just show up as black. If the driver had bothered to look up rather than focus on his lap the accident would not have happened. Additionally, the LIDAR should have detected the pedestrian who was crossing the street. Uber has a bad reputation with their autonomous driving and is well behind everyone else when it comes to safety. They were the only ones who balked when California required them to register, in part because California requires them to document every time a human driver has to take over and every incident.

Uber had also decided to cut costs by reducing the number of people monitoring the self-driving cars from two to one.

Re: needs to go to criminal court

[Type44Q]

The company, maybe... the car, definitely.

Re:needs to go to criminal court

[Actually, I do RTFA]

You're assuming that self-driving cars are a form of progress. A lot of people oppose them, for privacy, security and financial reasons. For instance, how many years of normal deaths are going to be made up in the first hacking of 1 million cars on the road? Of 100 million? How are you going to like renting rides from a company that sells your data as opposed to owning a car.

Re:needs to go to criminal court

[gl4ss]

actually uber engineers should be and the uber driver.

uber knows their driver wasn't paying attention - their whole permit dependent on the driver paying attention.

then they disabled factory safety systems, which may or may not be illegal in that state. even if you're sticking on extra stuff.

then the car had no safety for parts of the autonomous driving system being apparently non functional. .. uber would get a free pass if the driver could be shown to have been paying attention but instead it has been shown the driver wasn't paying attention.

Re: needs to go to criminal court

[sonamchauhan]

Uber was speeding 3 mph. Safety driver was looking at lap. Second safety driver was dispensed with. Uber software is known for dangerous bugs (read article on them in MIT review 2 years ago). Though possible for a human, the Uber made no attempt to brake. Kinetic energy due to the excess speed was 17% of impact energy. Braking would have reduced it further. A second safety driven could have called attention. Sticking to speed limit and braking would both have reduced impact energy substantially and may have given the woman valuable reaction time.

Re:needs to go to criminal court

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a great point. And I would go even further. I don't even see progress as having anything to do with technology. To me progress is more related to advances toward an equitable and just society, which is a human endeavour . The technologies that support these goals I would consider progressive technologies, but most of what is labelled "progress" today is just the opposite.

Re:needs to go to criminal court

[Keith_Beef]

Yes.

The state prosecutor needs to look at this and decide if there is a case of criminal negligence, wilful blindness, or whatever Arizona law has.

It would also be a good idea for Arizona's voters to look at their Governor's cosy relations with Uber, and how he encouraged slack requirements for driverless vehicles at a time when California was enacting stricter requirements for them.

A tranche of emails published through a document request from The Guardian reveals that governor Doug Ducey went to some lengths to encourage Uber to move its program from California to Arizona, including allowing it to test self-driving cars in Phoenix back in August 2016 without letting the public know.

The close relationship between Uber and Ducey paid off when California forced Uber to shut down its self-driving program after their cars were spotted running several red lights in San Francisco and it was discovered the company had never applied for autonomous vehicle testing permits.

Ducey embraced their arrival, putting out a statement that read: "Arizona welcomes Uber self-driving cars with open arms and wide open roads. While California puts the brakes on innovation and change with more bureaucracy and more regulation, Arizona is paving the way for new technology and new businesses." It is notable that he did not mention that his office knew Uber had been secretly testing its cars for months in his state.

Source:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/03/28/uber_selfdriving_death_may_have_been_due_to_lidar_blind_spot/

Hey, Arizona! Do you want your kids to be killed by Uber's experiments? Or do you want Uber to make cars safer before unleashing them on public roads?

A start, might be to go back to multiple LIDAR sensors around the car, instead of the cheaper single sensor on the roof.

Re:needs to go to criminal court

[Anonymous Coward]

If it had been an unmodified version of the car, it's basic crash avoidance tech would have saved her life. Uber's tech is apparently worse than what currently exists on production vehicles.

Re: needs to go to criminal court

[Talderas]

Most jurisdictions have laws indicating that cross walking between controlled intersections is prohibited.

Most jurisdictions also have laws on the books that prohibit stopping your car within an intersection and impeding traffic. If you're trying to enter the roadway at any place other than an intersection you have to wait until you can safely make your maneuver or another car yields the right of way to you because your "pushing" out is a moving violation.

Re:needs to go to criminal court

[Rick Schumann]

Fuck off. We're talking about half-assed pseudo-intelligent computer programs that have been RUSHED TO MARKET and has now killed a human being. GET THEM OFF THE ROADS and keep them off until we have REAL AI that can actually THINK and REASON like a human being. This crap they keep trotting out can't do any of that, and has to come to a complete stop and 'phone home' because it can't handle something, have a real human being take over remotely? What the fuck is that? It's GARBAGE, get it off the roads and KEEP IT OFF.

Re: needs to go to criminal court

[hawk]

Judge: How does the defendant plea?

Car: *beep*

Judge: I need a guilty or not guilty.

Car: [*flips windshield wipers, splashing a bit onto prosecutor*}

Prosecutor: Your honor!

Judge: Enough of that. I need a plea *now*!

Car: [shudders and squirts a quart of oil, fouling the prosecutor's shoes]

Re: needs to go to criminal court

[Toad-san]

Reaction time? That woman could've been given the rest of the night to react and it would've made no difference. She was totally oblivious to that oncoming car. Despite what appears to be flaws or faults in the "autonomous" driving mechanics or software, she was as much to blame for that as anyone. Given that perhaps the video is darker than it would have appeared in real life, I still don't see how a human driver (e.g., me, and I'm neither careless nor slow) could've avoided her.

But yeah, payoff is probably cheaper than a lawsuit because the jury would be _so_ sympathetic to that poor woman vs. the greedy careless corporation.

Re: needs to go to criminal court

[Anonymous Coward]

She deserved a good horn honking and a 1-finger salute, not a body bag. Jaywalking shouldn't be a capital offense.

Re: needs to go to criminal court

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, they were 2 mph under the limit. Or maybe 7mph; I've heard conflicting stories about whether the limit was 35, 40, or 45.

The accident would have been prevented by a human driver taking their foot off the gas when they saw the woman start crossing the road. Not reduced, prevented. There was plenty of time to avoid it entirely...if only someone had been watching.

Re:needs to go to criminal court

[david_thornley]

I see you're not a fan of personal responsibility, since you're defending people who made a car that can't detect a pedestrian in plain view, and a safety driver that was inattentive. Personal responsibility as a driver means I don't hit people, even if I can construct a legal case so I'm not actually charged.

Re:needs to go to criminal court

[amicusNYCL]

You're an idiot Rick, and you have no problem illustrating that fact. Is that what you think it was programmed to do, Rick? Are the people working on this software sitting there saying "I don't want this to be perfect, let's just work until it works right most of the time and then go home." Is that really what you think these people are doing? If you saw the Uber video, it should be obvious to any thinking human that large parts of that system failed. I know there were a lot of medium-sized words in that sentence, so I'll try to break it down for you Rick: that means that it specifically did not work like it was designed to work.

Did you see the new story, Rick? It happened again. So, surely, after reading that article you're going to call for a ban on cars, or bus stops, or 38 year old women, or roads, or something, right? LIVES ARE AT STAKE RICK, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO BAN TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM?

Re:needs to go to criminal court

[amicusNYCL]

You're assuming that self-driving cars are a form of progress.

They are.

A lot of people oppose them, for privacy, security and financial reasons.

That's fantastic. In other news, when they're doing the actual job of driving people or things from place to place, independent of any privacy or security issues that the companies might add to the existing vehicle, what we're going to see is a reduction in driving injuries and fatalities. And, yes, I call that progress.

For instance, how many years of normal deaths are going to be made up in the first hacking of 1 million cars on the road?

I hope you don't expect an answer to that ridiculous question.

How are you going to like renting rides from a company that sells your data as opposed to owning a car.

Why would I choose to do business with a company selling my data? Is selling my data some sort of requirement for autonomous driving that I'm not aware of? Are these two things tightly and necessarily coupled?

and the ford one will just payout vs fixing issues

[Joe_Dragon]

and the ford one will just payout vs fixing issues as it costs less.

Already?!

[wonkey_monkey]

It's barely been two weeks. I don't think either party is doing themselves any favours by settling so quickly. The family might barely have had time to grieve, which could (or maybe it couldn't, IANAL) leave Uber open to having the original settlement discarded if they change their minds. It also just makes Uber look pretty shady that they just mumble some apologies and throw a ton of cash at the problem.

Re:Already?!

[mamono]

The woman was homeless, so I'm willing to bet that her family smelled money and decided to cash in quick. I bet that Uber got a hell of a bargain because they would have likely settled for an extremely low amount, likely less than $100,000.

Re:Already?!

[ShanghaiBill]

It's barely been two weeks.

They just need to agree on a number. It shouldn't take more than a few hours to look at some similar incidents for precedent. Dragging it out just means more money goes to the lawyers.

The family might barely have had time to grieve

Oh give me a break. She was homeless. Neither her daughter nor husband was even willing to let her sleep on their sofa. Do you really think they are so heartbroken that they need weeks to grieve?

It also just makes Uber look pretty shady that they just mumble some apologies and throw a ton of cash at the problem.

Yes it is amazing that Uber was willing to sully their otherwise pristine reputation. It would have been soooo much more ethical to drag the family through months or years of litigation.

Re:Already?!

[harvey the nerd]

You mean Uber could be bankrupted if they tried to take it to court. Tried in the daily press could have been extremely ugly.

Re:Already?!

[fluffernutter]

It shouldn't take more than a few hours to look at some similar incidents for precedent.

Yet it's the first time a woman is killed by a self-driving car, so I don't see how. Convincing the parties that this is the same as any distracted driver hitting any jaywalker would be dishonest.

Africa

[thinkwaitfast]

If this was in Tanzania, they could have gotten out by payment of 47 cows to the victim's family. It's good to see we are so much more civilized in the West.

That was a little too quick.

[nimbius]

speaking from experience as someone who was injured by a faulty amusement park ride, there are a few things that nobody talks about during these events. namely:

reaching out: companies that are clearly at-fault or expect to lose a court case for your injury are about as persistent as the FBI in finding you after the event. Leading up to surgery for a compound fracture, I was asked by nurses if i knew "my friend" from the amusement park and would allow them to see me. These were attorneys and PR representatives. two of them gave no name to the desk, one of them roamed the ER for 5 minutes trying to find me before being escorted out by security.

more reaching out.: I had 11 voicemails from various firms and individuals working directly with the amusement park. They all started the same, condolences for "the event" but never admitting anything more than "sad that i wasnt feeling well." I had two flower bouquets sent to my hospital room, both came with a stapled 20 page release/disclosure and instructions on how to sign and how to return.

helping hands: When i was discharged I had two separate requests to pay my hospital bill, neither directly from the amusement park but one suspiciously from a "health" provider. I also had about a dozen more voicemails growing increasingly urgent. At some point a pizza was sent to my house and a get-well-soon card. no sender was named. The next day four people in suits arrived at my door and wanted to talk about the incident insisting I could be liable for damages to the park if the matter wasnt resolved quickly.

The point is: lawyer up and dont settle. if someone is at fault for what happened the worst thing you can do is settle because nothing will get fixed. The company gets to claim no-fault, and can easily pay to have their story killed in the local news. My accident didnt even make the newspaper, but the company had to admit fault and disclose the event to shareholders. I was also successful in getting the rides full safety history disclosed, with more than 40 violations, which resulted in it being shut down. this triggered a full OSHA inspection, which shut down two more rides and ended up in documented fines and violations for the company.

Re:That was a little too quick.

[Rick Schumann]

Your experience sounds like the tactics an insurance company will use in an auto accident: they'll offer to pay your medical bills up front. If you're dumb enough to cash the check, they'll turn around and claim they've 'settled your claim' and you get NOTHING MORE FROM THEM. You're right, get a lawyer, go straight to litigation, otherwise they'll use underhanded tactics to screw you.

Re:That was a little too quick.

[stabiesoft]

I see the trolls are out again trying to save the self drive industry. So explain to us again how LIDAR cannot see in the dark?

And I'll say again, Uber got super lucky it was a homeless person. The shlitterbahn guys got arrested when their water slide killed someone, who just happened to be the kid of a senator. This is what should happen here as well. Uber downgraded the LIDAR for cost saving. Wonder if it saved em more than the payout to family?

Re:That was a little too quick.

[thegarbz]

The point is: lawyer up and dont settle.

Don't generalise. This was a road vehicle accident, and in the overwhelming vast majority of cases the family of victims get diddley squat. Doubly so that there was an employee Uber was able to throw under the bus for this. And the person was crossing the road where she wasn't supposed to.

Point is don't always assume you are in an awesome position just because ${bad_thing} happened to you. Your case varies greatly in strength for yourself as well as strength of opponents.

Personally I think the family was right to settle. This is a case where I expected they wouldn't even get a letter of condolence, not only because of the circumstances but also because of who was involved (and who wasn't, namely the family).

Re:That was a little too quick.

[quantaman]

The point is: lawyer up and dont settle. if someone is at fault for what happened the worst thing you can do is settle because nothing will get fixed. The company gets to claim no-fault, and can easily pay to have their story killed in the local news. My accident didnt even make the newspaper, but the company had to admit fault and disclose the event to shareholders. I was also successful in getting the rides full safety history disclosed, with more than 40 violations, which resulted in it being shut down. this triggered a full OSHA inspection, which shut down two more rides and ended up in documented fines and violations for the company.

Depends on your objective.

If you want to expose and fix the underlying issue then by all means drag out the process.

If you just want the maximum settlement then your question becomes what has most value to the company. And the most valuable thing to the company is a quick and quiet settlement that kills the story. They should, in theory, be willing to pay a big premium to make the problem go away and avoiding another ugly news cycle.

This of course assumes you have a competent legal team who didn't let you get steamrolled.

Re:That was a little too quick.

[HornWumpus]

She was in the middle lane when hit. Didn't 'jump out'. Ubers cameras have _shitty_ night vision. WTF happened to LIDAR?

Re:That was a little too quick.

[dougmc]

This is a case where I expected they wouldn't even get a letter of condolence, not only because of the circumstances but also because of who was involved (and who wasn't, namely the family).

If a human driver had had this collision with no dashcam showing them on the phone -- there would be no settlement.

In fact, the insurance company might sue the estate of the deceased for damages to the car if they thought there was some money to get.

But ... this case is different. The self-driving car that should have been able to trivially avoid this collision, the inattentive "driver" (and evidence to that effect), the self-driving computer that probably kept logs of every little part of its decision making, the "first fatality" part of it and the big company with deep pockets behind it all -- there's so much that would make this "not your typical jaywalking collision", and I imagine that lawyers would be falling over themselves to represent that family.

It's in Uber's interests to get this settled quickly so it can fade into history, and my guess is that they offered a substantial amount of cash to help that happen.

Re:That was a little too quick.

[Kjella]

Don't generalise. This was a road vehicle accident, and in the overwhelming vast majority of cases the family of victims get diddley squat. Doubly so that there was an employee Uber was able to throw under the bus for this. And the person was crossing the road where she wasn't supposed to.

Well if I was a Uber lawyer I'd point out that despite all the things they could, might or should have done, any liability would depend on the legally required minimum of what they must do. So the family might drag Uber through the gutter, but in the end is anyone going to claim it's Uber's fault? I think they might have underestimated the Streisand effect, as a result of this NDA they probably can't say nothing. But I'm guessing they could make as much or more talking to the media, even if the actual case vanishes into nothing. Unless Uber made a really generous please STFU forever offer. If so, it might have been a ridiculously good payday compared to a human mowing her down.

Re:That was a little too quick.

[fluffernutter]

Because medical bills don't cover inconvenience and emotional distress.

Re:That was a little too quick.

[Talderas]

You're settling on the immediate medical bills. The settlement wouldn't necessarily cover for physical therapy or other future medical bills. There's also the loss of wages due to the accident. Programs in the US which provide payments to you for being unable to work do not typically reach the level that is equivalent to your wages. If you normally earn $400/day, you might get paid at a rate of $200/day. If it takes you twelve weeks to recover then that's $12000 in wages that you lost due to the accident.

Re:That was a little too quick.

[Talderas]

A majority of pedestrian fatalities involve a vehicle wouldn't settle primarily because the majority of pedestrian fatalities occur because the pedestrian makes a violation of the law which creates the potential for the accident occur. If it came down to a lawsuit the question that would be hashed out is who is more at fault for the accident and the reality is that the pedestrian is almost universally more at fault because they crossed the road in violation of the law creating a binary situation of no accident vs fatal accident while the vehicle's violation is very much a shade of grey where the outcome could have been anywhere between no accident to fatal accident.

I imagine that if you started polling personal injury attorneys we would likely find that the ones that advertise as "no fees without recovery" only take pedestrian/vehicle cases when the accident occurs at a marked crosswalk, an intersection, or at a driveway/alley exit onto the roadway. Pretty much all the places where drivers are required to yield the right of way to pedestrians.

Re:That was a little too quick.

[Green Mountain Bot]

Or lost wages and all of the assorted expenses associated with lost wages ...

Re:That was a little too quick.

[q4Fry]

... Doubly so that there was an employee Uber was able to throw under the bus for this. ...

Is the bus self-driving, too?

Re:That was a little too quick.

[dougmc]

Where Uber got *super* lucky is that the person that they hit was actually breaking the law by jaywalking.

Allegedly the car didn't even stop after the collision -- the human sitting in the driver's seat had to stop the car.

Given that the self-driving stuff probably relies on LIDAR to detect things like cyclists, it sounds like the system may not have even detected a cyclist riding down the road in the proper way with proper lighting as required by law and would have run them down. Had that been the case, there would be no "this collision was their fault" at all -- the fault would lie entirely with the self-driving car and its inattentive human sitting in the driver's seat.

That would have lead to a much larger settlement and hurt the self-driving car cause much more -- after all, given what really happened there's a large number of people saying "no human could have avoided that collision!" which is absolutely not true -- human eyes are way better than what that dashcam can see -- but people do still sort of believe that.

Re:That was a little too quick.

[HornWumpus]

Coming from the left. The video shows a wide shoulder to her right, if not a true lane.

I can see why the husband might...

[uncqual]

...reach a settlement, but why would the daughter participate?

The damage to the car didn't look all that extensive - although perhaps some expensive sensors were damaged. I believe Arizona is a community property state so the husband may be obligated to pay for damages caused by the his wife's illegal jaywalking, but if the husband couldn't afford to pay for repairs, why would the daughter help out -- she has no legal obligation to do so.

Re:I can see why the husband might...

[Known Nutter]

Seriously?

Don't you think the terms of a settlement of this nature would preclude any further civil action on behalf of either party related to this incident? Are you seriously suggesting that Uber would cut them a check then go after them for the damage to the vehicle?

Get real.

Re:I can see why the husband might...

[uncqual]

No. I was in a (apparently too) dry attempt at humor suggesting that perhaps Uber was suing for repairs to the car and the family paid them rather than go to court. Nothing that's been I've seen reported tells us who paid who so everyone's making assumptions.

Of course, if I had to bet, I'd bet Uber/their insurance company paid off the family rather than go to court to defend themselves. It was probably cheaper than fighting the case in court even if they thought they would win (which, depending on Arizona's laws on such cases, they probably couldn't have won completely anyway - the "safety driver" was obviously not paying attention and if there was a rational chance she could have noticed and even slowed down a bit and/or swerved and reduced the severity of the collision, Uber would likely have been held at least some percent liable).

Re:I can see why the husband might...

[brunes69]

What he is suggesting is that if there was a human behind the wheel, there would be no lawsuit here, as anyone who has seen the dashcam footage would know. This woman would have died with a human driving as well since she was extremely stupidly jaywalking across a four lane freeway under pitch black conditions.

No human could have reacted fast enough to not kill her, and no human would be found at fault, so there would be no settlement.

The only reason it is in the news, and being settled, is because it was a self-driving vehicle and Uber wants it over as soon as possible.

Re:I can see why the husband might...

[uncqual]

Thanks, AC, for the link.

When I was watching the original Uber video, it was immediately clear to me that how a human might perceive the situation in those lighting conditions might be quite different than what the video would have recorded. It also seemed strange that even the safety driver, when she was actually looking at the road (which, I assume she must have at some time during the trip, perhaps in a less than well lit area), would have been uncomfortable "overdriving" their headlights as much as it appeared the car was.

I would like to think that Uber didn't intentionally doctor the video and that the misleading contrast was the result of a camera that sucked (perhaps too slow to adjust adequately to changing light conditions). But, then, this is Uber so I probably shouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt.

For a corporation, it's a no-brainer

[Khashishi]

It doesn't matter who's at fault here. Uber can afford to pay the family whatever they want. Going to court is not worth the bad publicity.

Apple is not in the self driving car business

[hcs_$reboot]

And that's good news. If each iOS 11 bug costs a life, Earth population is at risk.

NVIDIA

[crvtec]

I'm sure this came from NVIDIA's coffers, too.

Re:and the ford one will just payout vs fixing iss

[fluffernutter]

And now they will proceed to program this calculation into every decision the car ever makes.

Re:32 million

[Smerta]

For anyone who doesn't follow the link to read the story you posted -- apparently the gang members who donned brass knuckles and beat the kid into a coma were all Six Flags employees - WTF?!?! Kinda makes you wonder what the hiring process is like there.

Not Necessarily Because of Criminal Actions

[Koreantoast]

Uber's decision to settle quickly isn't necessarily because they thought they couldn't win. The company might simply be trying to get the news off the headlines which could hurt the reputation of driverless vehicles instead of having it dragged out for years as it goes through the legal process. Or they might have done the math and found it was simply cheaper to just pay the family and be done with it versus hire an army of lawyers for the next five years. It could be too that they didn't want to go too deep into their technology in a public court case, and this was a way to protect their proprietary findings.

Re:Woman hit by car

[david_thornley]

In situations like this, you should always ask yourself, "Who would Jesus kill?"

Re:Uber should not be allowed to test driverless c

[david_thornley]

From what I've read, Uber is losing money fairly fast and has a negative revenue stream from people driving for it, paying the driver more than they charge the passenger. In that case, they're betting the company on self-driving technology.