Slashdot Mirror
California Police Ticket A Self-Driving Car (cbslocal.com)
Long-time Slashdot reader Ichijo writes: A self-driving car was slapped with a ticket after police said it got too close to a pedestrian on a San Francisco street.
The self-driving car owned by San Francisco-based Cruise was pulled over for not yielding to a pedestrian in a crosswalk. Cruise says its data shows the person was far away enough from the vehicle and the car did nothing wrong.... According to data collected by Cruise, the pedestrian was 10.8 feet away from the car when, while the car was in self-driving mode, it began to continue down Harrison at 14th St."
The person in the crosswalk was not injured.
The self-driving car owned by San Francisco-based Cruise was pulled over for not yielding to a pedestrian in a crosswalk. Cruise says its data shows the person was far away enough from the vehicle and the car did nothing wrong.... According to data collected by Cruise, the pedestrian was 10.8 feet away from the car when, while the car was in self-driving mode, it began to continue down Harrison at 14th St."
The person in the crosswalk was not injured.
Specifically: How does a cop pull over a self-driving car? I mean, exactly how does that happen logistically?
#DeleteChrome
According to data collected by Cruise, the pedestrian was 10.8 feet away from the car...
Yeah okay, but if their foot was in the crosswalk it doesn't matter if you were one foot or 20. Just because a lot of people skate by unnoticed doesn't make it legal. I'm sure the prosecutor is grateful for the data though.
I wonder if they use an AI to come up with their excuses.
No need. Bullshit excuses are as old as time itself.
Beware of the Leopard.
Well, the people in charge of the police better start thinking about the future. With self-driving cars, they might lose an important stream of revenue. Because lots of stuff in traffic is a question of opinion, I bet a cop can simply observe you and hand you a ticket for what you consider decent driving.
However with self-driving cars, the companies behind them will probably not stand for such random punishments. I mean, look at how fast Tesla comes with a statement whenever there was an accident with a model S or X.
It might actually mean more meaningful works for law enforcement officers as well. I can't imagine it's fun for them, handing out tickets.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
Computers can't make mistakes, this is unpossible. Plus Uber's crash video wasn't purposefully darkened to make them look better. Case closed.
10.8 feet is one second away at 7 mph. Too damn close -- company deserves a ticket.
Cruise says its data shows the person was far away enough from the vehicle and the car did nothing wrong....
Sounds like Cruise is finding out the imbalance of power that human motorists have to deal with apply to their cars, too. Doesn't really matter what happened, if the cop says you were doing something you're gonna get ticketed. And the courts will take his word above yours.
here, a car must stop and wait for the pedestrian to make it all the way across the street (or to a median dividing lanes of traffic) before proceeding. being "far enough away" or clear of the car's own lane is not enough. so, sounds like may be a nit-picking cop, but still a valid ticket nonetheless.
self driving cars in gatlinburg, tennessee (or other jurisdictions where jaywalking, basically, is legal -- encouraged, even -- and cars must stop for them, no exceptions.. except active first responders), will be interesting, to say the least.
a self driving car will probably have GB of data and video to prove it's innocence (unless it's an Uber killbot)
On the other hand, if I had a self driving car, you could bet there would be some additional programming that kicks in when needed called "High Speed Chase" if a cop tries to pull me over.
Seeing how insane cyclists tend to be, I'd be all for that. The most dangerous drivers on the road in the city are the bikers.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
pedestrians? I will just tell the cop DO I need an walking licensee now?
The company in this case is making up a rule about the distance from the pedestrian being critical (and asking us to trust it's assessment that the ped was 10 feet away). The actually rules have nothing to do with distance:
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/...
Can't their AI tell when someone is making eye-contact? Japanese photo-booths have been able to find human eyes for years now.
I could make that same argument for a car. I just stupid to be a blind rule-following robot and stop at every red light when you are moving 5-10 mph and can plainly see no cross traffic.
The issue most of us have with cyclists is that there is a significant number of them that really want maximum penalties applied to cars, but don't want the rules to apply to them at all.
Cars have poorer visibility, but I'd actually be for lights and stops being treated as "yield" signs in good visibility conditions and in the absense of cross traffic.
There is certainly someone in there, however there's much lower *risk* than a random vehicle as that person is at work on the clock, which potentially makes them a more attractive target.
This just means they'll have to adjust the laws to be less subjective.
--- Mercutio was right.
I'll be using this quote the next time I argue why cycling should be banned in cities. Thanks!
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Cops probably enforce it ... but only when people walk while the wrong age, wrong color, wearing the wrong clothes, or at the wrong time of day. Most ticketing is an excuse to fish for other moral "crimes" like having a bag of weed in one's pocket. If cops were taken off traffic, vice, etc enforcement and required to concentrate on crimes that actually harmed others, the US would be a better place to live.
Also, if there's no sidewalk, walking the "wrong way" (facing traffic) is likely correct and safer.
A bullshit made-up story is quite a bit different than several sensors and cameras actively recording the event and presented as evidence in a case.
A bullshit made-up story is quite a bit different than several sensors and cameras actively recording the event and presented as evidence in a case.
How is it evidence, really? What guarantee can the company give that the data it might provide hasn’t been tampered with? Did they work right with law enforcement or some legal entity ahead of time to make sure all data collection follows legal rules pertaining to evidence?
#DeleteChrome
People have gotten off on tickets with dashcam footage. I bet the car in question has that and more
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
I think Cruise is a menace that drives like a lost drunk senior citizen, but they may not be at fault in this case. The rules governing crosswalks in California are *mostly* clear, though the responsibility to yield to pedestrians does not make clear whether yielding requires mere allowance for unimpeded progress or full affordance of the crosswalk to the pedestrian when the crosswalk is lawfully occupied.
Any California traffic attorneys want to chime in?
A sworn affidavit and someone familiar with the system testifying that it is a record kept in the normal course of business.
Rules of evidence can be complex, but this is not one of those cases.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Pedestrians are supposed to walk ginst traffic though. At least that's what I was taught.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Cyclists in San Francisco regularly run four way stops, causing panic braking, and I had to swerve to avoid a trio riding the wrong way on a divided street (Dolores) on Thursday.
San Francisco cyclists regularly put the burden for their survival on other users of the road (pedestrians, drivers, other cyclists). There absolutely should be more ticketed cyclists in San Francisco, but it should not be driven by a revenue motive.
I say this as a cyclist, skater, pedestrian, and driver.
It sounds like the car was driving behind.
Car stopped, pedestrian crosses, car drives with pedestrian out of the way, but not clear of sidewalk.
Depending the relative traffic (foot, vs street, vs cross), this seems pretty reasonable.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
We've seen what kind of dashcam footage self-driving car companies use. The kind that is doctored to try to show no culpability on the part of their vehicle.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The same way the cop saying he saw something is considered "evidence". What guarantee can the cop give that his testimony isn't a complete lie for whatever purpose he might do so (prejudice, bored, envy, revenue, shorting stock)?
It's "presented as evidence" and the judge (or jury) decides based on the evidence what he believes really happened. The prosecution will also get a chance to argue that the data may have been altered, shot with some weird lenses that distort perspective, etc if they so choose, and if the company (or driver) is found to have falsified/perjured themselves then they look at real jail time and real fines rather than the $35 ticket they are charged with.
Go for it, raving maniacs on street corners are good entertainment.
Look at what we're missing out on by not riding bikes more...
Exactly -- it's essentially self-punishing, no need to ticket or have cops harass people.
Exactly: walking and cycling don't isolate you from the craziness of the world around you.
Buuullllshit. In fifty years of driving I've had numerous cyclists pull out in front of me without looking, come down the street the wrong way and do any number of other stupid and definitely unsafe things.
Um, no. Walking on the non-traffic side of the curb is the safe bet.
They'll either Darwin themselves, get a case of the brownshorts from almost getting hit and reform their ways, or give up cycling entirely after something unpleasant happens. This is largely a self-correcting problem.
The one major problem that should be addressed by legislation is unrealistic workloads on food delivery/messenger cyclists, encouraging unsafe riding and accidents.
Walking on the side of the road facing traffic is the RIGHT way. Walking on the shoulder going with traffic is what's wrong.
A lot of roads don't have curbs with "non traffic sides", especially outside of larger cities and towns. You might have thorn bushes off to the side of the pavement.
Cyclists are safe, because their own bodies are on the line. It's just stupid to be a blind rule-following robot and stop at every red light when you are moving 5-10 mph and can plainly see no cross traffic.
Oh, like so? Seems legit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Beware of the Leopard.
He crossed against the light with cross traffic obviously present, so not "like so."
A car at 10mph feels incredibly slow to a driver. It will, however, do a whole lot of damage to a person (or indeed bend some metal on another car) if there's an impact. A bicycle has much less mass so will therefore do a lot less damage at the same speeds, in addition to being more maneuverable, having better visibility for the cyclist as opposed to the driver, and having a shorter stopping distance.
Streets would be much safer if drivers learned to stop driving through San Francisco. Pedestrians are afforded the right-of-way, and they ought to exercise their right (if they were in a car, failure to take the right-of-way---i.e. impeding traffic---is a ticketable offence).
How do you think the world works?
It's just stupid to be a blind rule-following robot and stop at every red light when you are moving 5-10 mph and can plainly see no cross traffic.
As a cyclist myself I am ashamed of you. Moreover you are handing a whole shipload of ammunition to the anti-cycling brigade.
Pedestrians are supposed to walk ginst traffic though. At least that's what I was taught.
So was I, and it's in the UK Highway Code. The idea is that if a car on your own side of the road does not see you then you can see what is happening and leap into the ditch or bushes out of the way. If the car is on the other side of the road it does not generally matter whether they see you or not.
The problem is that people (especially Americans) are too much about "fair play" and "rule following." Does anyone get hurt if a cyclist slows down at a red light in some sleepy little town on a weekend, looks both ways, sees that it's safe, and crosses? Nope. But people's stupid sense of fair play will be offended if they see it.
"Jaywalking" and similar forms of cycling should be able to be practiced when safe -- in fact, some cities actually allow cyclists to treat red lights as 4-way stops, not wait like tethered goats until the light changes. (Which may be never if the sensors are improperly set for cyclists.)
Cyclists are safe, because their own bodies are on the line. It's just stupid to be a blind rule-following robot and stop at every red light when you are moving 5-10 mph and can plainly see no cross traffic.
Most of them I see don't drive as if their own body is on the line. Two examples I can think of:
Four lanes of traffic in our direction were stopped at a crosswalk where the pedestrian had activated the overhead flashing lights to cross from left to right. I was stopped in the front in the right hand curb lane. The pedestrian was about half way in front of my car when I noticed a cyclist going full steam down the gutter in my wing mirror. I honked my horn which startled and stopped the pedestrian, and she was confused about why until the cyclist went wizzing by. The cyclist would have hit the pedestrian otherwise. I should have deployed the passenger door instead.
Another case was at a 3-way stop where one of the directions had two lanes. One straight, one right. Continuously every day I would see cyclists passing in the gutter of the "RIGHT TURN ONLY" lane to run the stop sign and go straight. You have to be pretty brain dead to pass on the right hand side of cars with right turn signals on, in a right turn only lane. I have no idea why they didn't just lane split between the straight and turn lanes. We've heard about cyclists "taking the lane", so at this intersection I would "take the gutter" to reduce the chance of a cyclist being "right hooked". They'd just get pissed off and suddenly decide they were a pedestrian and start biking on the sidewalk and blow through the crosswalk at 15MPH.
Cyclists are safe
They are not. Firstly because even if they do do everything right there's no accounting for everyone else on the road, and secondly because a significant proportion of them are absolute bloody idiots, and I say that as an avid cyclist.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I like the way the car beeps, the cyclist gets hit, then the car gives a double-beep as if to say "Told ya so."
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
To the people typing stuff like this:
"So, your expert testimony is that a corporation would totally never lie when their business is involved?"
I'm always curious if you're able to keep a straight face while doing so. Do you truly believe that you've just asked THE question that no one who has come before you has ever thought you ask? Is it actually possible that some sort of divine enigma has granted you with mysterious powers of discernment that society could use to usher in a new era if we just stopped and listened? I think you fit the clinical definition of a megalomaniac if you believe that. What's likely happening is that you just don't know what it is that you don't know. You're probably just too inexperienced to be able to effectively deal with the intricacies of the systems you're commenting on, and too stupid to realize that what you're saying doesn't even apply. Rome wasn't built in a day, and society didn't get to where it was by accident. The world is filled with plenty of people that have advanced degrees and specialized knowledge in their respective domains. Instead of thinking that you're smarter than everyone else, might I suggest you get out there and do the hard work yourself if you really want to sound like anything other than an ignoramus on the topic you want to talk about. At the very least, you could start by asking why things are they way they are in these situations...instead of assuming you know better.
"So, your expert testimony is that a corporation would totally never lie when their business is involved?"
Do you have any idea what gives legal weight to a thing as evidence under the law? Obviously, you don't. I'm sure you're one of those armchair attorneys who thinks "circumstantial evidence" doesn't qualify as evidence in a court of law. Look up the McVeigh trial, because you're a moron.
People should bear this in mind even when they've got a pavement to walk on. I always move to go on the outside if I'm passing someone on foot and facing the traffic, but there's no end of numpties who'll do the same going the other way, and then have to check over their shoulder to see what's coming.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I'm not even sure where to buy such a crappy dash cam. Maybe from 1998, used, with some philly cheddar grease spread on the lens.
New York City's DOT records of pedestrian fatalities disagree with you on this point.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nycdot-pedestrian-fatalities-by-bike-motor-vehicle.pdf
I'm not for protecting people FROM THEMSELVES. If people want to engage in dangerous conduct that primarily hurts themselves, let them. Yeah, yeah, medical costs. The US would have plenty of money for medical costs if it didn't constantly send its military on homicide sprees abroad.
Don't pretend that Uber or Waymo or Cruise or Tesla have the same level of "dashcam footage". Waymo has spent a lot of developer time considering clear user interfaces to express all the objects its tracking and all the different ways its doing the tracking because Waymo's vision is about making self driving cars that are safer than human drivers. [cool 360 marketing video I found] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8R148hFxPw
I expect that we'll see a Waymo car make a mistake at some point and get pulled over, and there will be a post-mortem on the incident. Waymo is the game to beat here. It will be cool if / when I can order one in silicon valley to pick up my kids.
If they cyclists "fuck up", they tend to get the brunt of the injuries anyway, or even die. But crossing against a light isn't a mortal sin if you actually bother to look and there's no cross traffic with clear lines of sight. Slow down. Look both ways. Proceed if it's clear.
That's only true at night, on a rural road, where there is no shoulder to walk on and you're exiting the roadway whenever a vehicle approaches.
In all other conditions you should walk with traffic in a normal way, behaving as traffic behaves.
If you're not sure, stop repeating what your uncle told you and consult your state's driver manual.
Luckily, California isn't in the UK.
They don't even know which side of the road to drive on there!
What's the harm in walking against traffic? The 3 mph or so that a human walks adds an insignificant amount to the closing speed, and the pedestrian can see traffic and jump to the side if (say) a drunk driver target-fixates on them.
As long as the pedestrian isn't dancing in the middle of a traffic lane, ticketing them for walking the wrong way on the side of the road is idiotic.
Holy fuck, try being a cop sometime. That's all I have to say.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
If I tried, I'd probably let go 75% of the people whom I encountered out of pity. Why should the taxpayers pay to cage someone caught with a bag of politically incorrect substance, or people who can't afford it be fined for mistakes short of recklessness, or people be arrested for what they do in the bedroom between consenting adults? I suspect the moral compass of many cops, because they volunteered to enforce a bunch of laws that are either designed for random taxation, or to enforce religious superstitions against pleasure.
Great. I'll swear in court I wasn't going 90 in a 30. It's just as likely to be the truth. I'll even write it down and you can give it a fancy name like affidavit.
Not buying it? You shouldn't be buying the company's either. They actually have greater incentive to lie, and lower risk if caught.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Until you make the wrong call, and hit a pedestrian and cause serious injury. Or you force me to swerve in my car, hurting myself- or others. The rules are there for a reason. If you want to go do some extreme sport driving your bike down a mountain or something, feel free. You have the right to do things that risk your own life. You don't have the right to put others in unnecessary risk, which your attitude does.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Done properly, there's zero risk.
Nope, but I have PERSONALLY been affected by a lying police officer, so I know it happens. It wasn't a misunderstanding, he wasn't stating something he actually thought was correct, he just did it because he was in a position of "power", and there wasn't much I could do about it but take it to a judge who would immediately side with him anyways. And he told me as such. Sucks, and I'm out a couple hundred dollars, and a day going to court.
That said, I find most cops are nice and honest, and I still value the services that they provide, but assuming that just because a cop says something doesn't make it irrefutably true, unfortunately. Wish it was.
I hope the city throws this out with the evidence presented by the owner of the self-driving car.
Self-driving cars can simply be programmed to follow all rules of the road. If a pedestrian breaks the rules (jay-walking or not crossing at a designated cross walk), then that's on the pedestrian, not on the car.
Also, if the ticket does stick, then an update can be released to all of the self-driving cars over the air with the new rules, and the city can't collect traffic fines. Eventually, the city would either have to relent that self-driving cars will reduce revenue or that they'll continue to make up new violations to the point that cars would be completely illegal as you couldn't go anywhere without a ticket being issued.
Unfortunately, you're a human. That means you won't always do it properly. And frankly I don't believe anyone with your attitude would actually give it a sufficient safety cushion anyway. The best that we can hope for is that WHEN you fuck up, you're the only one that gets hurt. Unfortunately it rarely goes that cleanly.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Lying to a judge? That's a cunt move. I fucking hate it when liars aren't fucking held to the standard expected in court. Perjury should be enforced more often.
There's also the question of what the actual law is. Here, the law is that traffic has to stay stopped as long as a pedestrian is in a crosswalk. Lots of people start moving once the pedestrian is out of their lane, which is strictly illegal here, perhaps the self driving car did similar? In which case the dash cam will show the car being in the wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
And the person who kills the cyclist? Even if it is one hundred percent the cyclists fault, most people are going to suffer some post traumatic stress, especially if they kill the cyclist in a bloody way and have to deal with the person as in trying to give first aid or such.
Shit, I just about killed one the other day, going down a hill on a busy road, the idiot was passing traffic on the right at red lights. I just about turned into him (actually I guess he would have hit me as I turned depending on timing) as I wasn't expecting an idiot to try to pass me in that foot of road between me and the curb at a red light (legal here to turn right on red). I would have not felt good if he'd died even if it was his fault, plus it would be a big hassle. Cops usually start out assuming the driver was at fault.
It's easy to invoke Darwin when an idiot gets killed but often there is more then the idiot involved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Yeah, one of you has a financial motive to lie. And the other is a normal driver. And if you don't like your 60 over ticket you can have obstruction and assaulting an officer too.
I'm kind of a fan of the city of Houston's trick. They'll remove traffic signs for a week, write tickets all day enforcing them then put them back up. I located three different places around downtown they rotated between. Also, dashcams pay for themselves. Make sure yours can upload via wifi and a cell phone app. Make sure to keep your mouth shut about the dashcam and cover lights on it though or you may be assaulted.
How would they hire a new police force then?
I'm pretty sure that my Provinces rules include walking facing traffic when there is no sidewalk or shoulder. Unluckily there are close to 65 sets of rules in N. America, not including Mexico and points south
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
That's only true at night, on a rural road, where there is no shoulder to walk on and you're exiting the roadway whenever a vehicle approaches.
In all other conditions you should walk with traffic in a normal way, behaving as traffic behaves.
That's incorrect.
Pedestrians walking in the roadway should walk facing traffic. Pedestrians can stop and change direction effectively instantly so it's to their benefit to see oncoming traffic. They have different motion characteristics than wheeled vehicles. The CDC page on pedestrian safety agrees with this.
Cyclists riding on the roadway should ride with traffic and follow traffic rules and behave as a part of normal traffic.
The physical injuries, sure. But if they die, the drivers that hit them are scarred for life in ways that won't ever heal.
All it takes is one pedestrian that you didn't see who steps out from behind a parked car, and now you've just killed someone because you crossed the road illegally while they had a walk light. You should always, ALWAYS obey the lights.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
FTFY.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Not in California, it isn't. You're required to yield to the pedestrian and drive in a manner that avoids putting the pedestrian in danger. You are NOT required to wait until the pedestrian is safely on the opposite curb. Laws requiring that are exceptionally rare in the U.S.:
Source: NCSL
Notice that California isn't on that list. California law just requires you to yield.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
We've seen what kind of dashcam footage self-driving car companies use. The kind that is doctored to try to show no culpability on the part of their vehicle.
Which they can use in the court of public opinion. If they're trying to fight a ticket or manslaughter charge in an actual court they'd better hand over the complete raw, unedited camera and sensor data for analysis. And that's the question here, they say the car did nothing wrong so are they going to challenge the ticket in court? My guess is they won't do it, they'll just pay off the driver who got the ticket and chalk it up as development costs. But it would have been interesting to see...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Despite what you think the criminal system works a bit differently than the anecdote of a single witness and it is quite easy to prove those witness statements legally doubtful.
Police tickets get thrown out all the time all over the world for this reason, sometimes they even get thrown out when they present their own evidence when it could be considered legally doubtful.
Cops are human beings, with mostly the same virtues and weaknesses. They are granted power, which in some people instills a great sense of responsibility but which other people sometimes abuse for personal profit or out of cruelty.
For that reasons we have checks on cops behaviour, just like we have checks on most people who wield official power. In a "my word vs the cop's" situation it is difficult and indeed, the judge generally sides with the cop, and your single complaint will not get him/her fired. However, if a single cop gets too many complaints it will count against them; and if you have real evidence of a cop purposefully lying it can have real repercussions for him/her, depending on a lot of factors.
Granting power vs checking it is a real dilemma. If we ask judges and the cop's bosses to distrust cops by default, it will be very difficult to find and retain cops and to let them do their job, leading to much less effective policing and less security. If we go too far to the trust-by-default side, you get corruption and public distrust. However "we" chose to set the balance, there will be mistakes made in both directions. And yes, it sucks to be you if you are one of these mistakes...
This might be the most important statement in this entire discussion.A factual presentation of the data vs. what the police officer thought he saw. as this tech get's better, less and less auto accident and less speeding tickets will happen. the function of police will be crime related and no longer the revenue production of tickets from auto's.
I hope that this set's an example.
if you see me, smile and say hello.
No Cyclist are not safe, most people have never done a tuck and reached speeds of 50MPH on a 1980's ten speed ( modern bikes are most likely better to handle 50 MPH ). my old New Jersey - Alpine road crew was a 22mph crew and we were somewhat sane. But every year on the road someone would get hit by a car that "came out of no-where".
besides, why does a bike get the right to run a light while someone in a car has to sit on the light for the 30 seconds?
Try running a light in sunny isles fl, seen them pull over 16 people once for running the light. bunch of pissed off cyclist.
if you see me, smile and say hello.
Your argument about waiting in line everyone else comes down to: "people in cars are miserable, so everyone should be equally miserable." As far as Sunny Isles, FL, good to know -- the moral of the story isn't to obey lights, it's to watch for cops.
when I was younger I would walk with my mother in NYC, sometimes people on bikes are ass-hat's ( 80's and 90's).
I still laugh to this day... I am crossing a crosswalk with my mother and some bike blows a whistle to warn me, I turn, stop, take a stance, block my mother from the impact, bang, He went down hard. kept walking with mom.
yes, my forearms hurt like hell, but I am rather sure he did not get up from his impact upon meeting the street.
In NYC, I've seen bikers being clotheslined off the bike, forearmed, run over just because they did not want to stop at the red.
they need to learn how to stop for the light
if you see me, smile and say hello.
No: they need to learn to CHECK FOR TRAFFIC (car and pedestrian) before proceeding. Jaywalking and red-light running (by cars) are common enough in NYC to make checking useful, regardless of the light.
Not only that. But a lamppost ran into a drunk recently.
Have gnu, will travel.
And if the car hit the cop?
That's easy: it'll be found days later, out in the impound yard... with two bullet holes through the primary ECU.
Suicide.
Self driving cars will eliminate accidents because humans aren't good drivers. All these accidents and that dead woman are simply fake news designed to impede the glorious future of perfectly safe transportation, by elimination of the human from the process.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Except in regard to selfdriving cars, there are actually camera images and sensor data. So if the company really feels the car didn't do anything wrong, then it shouldn't be hard to prove it actually didn't do anything wrong.
Business records kept in the regular course of business are evidence once verified as a normal business record.
You can complain about it, but it's part of the rules of evidence.
As for you, if you had a dash cam even, I'd absolutely buy it over people's perception.
At this point you're not swearing to recollection, but instead to the fact that you aren't faking footage. One is clearly more credible than the other.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
You're flatly wrong, I can look it up in my Driver Handbook. Oh, wait, I already made it clear I know what it says. Fuck-an-A, this idea you're repeating is just the shit your parents/friends taught you, it is a disproven old idea. Unless you're exiting the roadway, there is no benefit from knowing that the car is there. That is not the correct way to protect your life. The correct technique is to walk in the same direction as traffic, as far to the side as you can, and behave as slow-moving traffic so that people driving cars can quickly predict your movements without needing to change mental contexts. This is a known and solved problem. This is not a controversial matter of traffic engineering, it is well-established.
That some foreign countries (the story is about California, USA) have an old law that predates the existence of modern traffic engineering does not change that in any way.
I just checked the transportation code for CA and TX because they are the biggest states. They both require pedestrians to walk facing traffic on roadways without sidewalks. I'm not sire if I'm feeding a troll or not but for anyone's information its VA code 21956.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
The second the AI knows the cops are out of range, however ...
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Cops are, basically, NEVER charged with perjury, even when caught in blatant lies.
Because the DA would have to retry a shitload of cases if he charged the cop with perjury, every case that cop had previously testified in.
The nations defense attorneys should start collecting transcripts of cops lying. But the court reporters own the copyright on transcripts, so they can't be posted in reach of US laws. Funny how that works out.
Defense attorneys should collect these transcripts on an overseas server. Testiliars should be forced to get honest jobs.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Always? Are you German?
The most baffling thing I've ever seen is a group of Germans walking after bars waiting for walk light on a two lane road where you could see a Km either way. No traffic. Bunch of goddamn law abiders.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Was it doctored or just bad?
I missed the articles about it actually being doctored.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
"I find most cops are nice and honest, and I still value the services that they provide"
The fact that they _tolerate_ the bad cops in their midst is the problem.
Those who enforce the law must be held to a higher standard than the general public, not given a free pass and some handwaving when they do things that would result in anyone else being jailed.
"They are granted power, which in some people instills a great sense of responsibility but which other people sometimes abuse for personal profit or out of cruelty."
Power corrupts. Power also attracts the corruptible and those who wish to wield it for power's sake.
One of the primary functions of police training in most parts of the world is to _weed out_ those who are unsuited to the job. In my original country we had a police force and a traffic force - with the latter being made up mostly of rejects from the police college.
It showed in spades - the police tended to be reasonable, level-headed individuals whilst the traffic officers frequently acted like jackbooted thugs. One day the government decided to merge the two departments _without_ retraining the traffic officers. 15 years later there was a major problem with abuse of power in the police, mostly from ex-traffic enforcement, but this was spreading amongst newer recruits too.
If someone failed (or dropped out of) police college for anything other than physical reasons you should be looking very carefully at their profile if they're looking to work in security or related jobs. They failed for a reason and it may not be obvious up front.
This problem is showing up in the UK heavily with their increasing use of volunteers as "PSCO"s - these are untrained, unsworn officers (aka plastic policemen) who are not given the full barrage of tests that normal police are given and there have been a large number of cases of abuse and corruption involving them. It's even been found in a few cases that organised crime rings have sent in members to work as PSCOs in order to gain access to intelligence, etc.
Doctored or not, that footage showed more than enough for a criminal prosecution in most countries.
It shows the systems Uber had installed did not react or slow down for a pedestrian crossing a multilane road with several seconds' notice, that Uber had interfered with the car's built-in anti-collision system (which would had stopped before she was hit) and that the safety supervisor was not doing her job.
The factor of the "right of way" of vehicles over pedestrians or not doesn't enter into it. It is only the USA which has such laws on ordinary roads. Other countries have them in very well defined areas with restricted access, such as motorways - and even there, failing to see/avoid a pedestrian with several seconds notice is careless driving causing death or injury.
Failing to yield right of way is a minor traffic infringement, not a death sentence. The antics of USA drivers deliberately driving _at_ pedestrians on the road would be classified as somewhere between reckless endangerment, aggravated threats with a deadly weapon and attempted murder in many countries, depending on the jurisdiction.
"Jaywalking" is a uniquely american law. It was enacted because of widespread lobbying by the motor industry, as were almost all the other pedestrian-hostile road rules in that country and stands out as a good example of corrupt industry-driven laws pushed through for financial objectives (selling more cars).
Treating a red light as a "stop" sign is acceptable in situations where the cycle clearly hasn't been detected by the equipment, but riding through without stopping is dangerous at best and frankly suicidal if there's any traffic around. There are a lot of cyclists in London where I drive and 99.9% of them are safe/law abiding, but "lycra-louts" who flout the road rules ruin the perception of cycling for everyone.