It really only solves the traffic stop problem. Meanwhile, people still have life threatening injuries that require transit to a hospital, buildings keep catching on fire, and police are often required to get to a point with all expediency.
And luckily we all believe the bullets drop out of the air at property lines and never crafted ordinances to punish people for discharging firearms in ways that contradict that belief!
You need a license to drive a car. You need to show that you know the rules to abide by when driving, and that you have sufficient skill and knowledge to minimize the danger you pose to others when driving.
You need a license to operate a vehicle on public roadways. It's a small but significant difference.
The statistics regarding gun death are the reason why the only sane headpiece regarding shooting and rifle control is Justice Paul Stevens. I may disagree with his stance but I agree that the method he proposes is the only sane method. The fact that a homicide death is 20x more like to be caused by a handgun over a rifle and the affirmation of DC vs Heller that owning a handgun is a protected right is one of those key supporting pieces. The icing on the cake is that you're twice as likely to get killed by lightning than during a shooting incident. Going after rifles is just smoke and noise. It's a gasp at something in ignorance of the facts which is why repealing the 2nd Amendment is the sane response for gun control.
However, repealing the 2nd Amendment does lead to certain philosophical questions that the country needs to face. This would be the first time the country is repealing an Amendment which claims the purpose of protecting individuals rights and it would be second time that an Amendment goes into effect which curtails privileges (the first time being the 18th Amendment which was repealed by the 21st). This has some troubling implications because if we think the protection of this right is no longer necessary, why then protect the other protected rights in the Constitution? Why would you think that the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, or 26th couldn't also be repealed?
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.
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.
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.
There's 34 sports in the summer Olympics. A sport in Olympic jargon is "all the events that are sanctioned by one international sport federation."
Aquatics, Basketball, Canoeing/Kayaking, Cycling, Gymnastics, Volleyball, Equestian, and Wrestling are multi-discipline sports.
Archery, Athletics, Badminton, Baseball, Boxing, Fencing, Field Hockey, Football (Soccer), Golf, Handball, Judo, Karate, Pentathlon, Rowing, Rugby, Sailing, Shooting, Skateboarding, Softball, Sport Climbing, Surfing, Table Tennis, Taekwondo, Tennis, Triathlon, Weightlifting are the remaining 27 sports.
Basketball, Baseball, Football, Golf, and Tennis are sports I would all peg as potentially not the top performers which is nearly 15% of the sports in the Olympics. As far as events go those constitute 14 events in the Olympics... out of 339 events for barely 4% of events.
Boxing is another sport in the Olympics that might not attract the top talent. That's another 13 events.
I'm not sure why you're modded insightful. Funny? Sure. This is not an insightful comment.
Theater is an overloaded term. The page you are referencing is referring to theater as an art form to which the movie art form is cinematography.
Theater as a building, which you would have been able to find by following the "other uses" link, is a type of building or environment that contains a stage and seating. Theaters can host a multitude of events from musical concerts, plays, comedians, or even cinema but it is best envisioned where live performers are upon the stage and the audience is in the seating.
The term theater can also reference a movie theater, because adjective-nouns are a subset of noun, which is a building that is setup specifically to host events for viewing cinema.
These are the basic guidelines the NHTSA gives for pedestrians. The pedestrian in this incident did the opposite for everything except the first and second point (which weren't relevant) and the last point which no one has indicated if it may have been a factor.
* Walk on a sidewalk or path when one is available. * If no sidewalk or path is available, walk on the shoulder, facing traffic Stay alert; don’t be distracted by electronic devices, including smart phones, MP3 players, and other devices that take your eyes (and ears) off the road. * Be cautious night and day when sharing the road with vehicles. Never assume a driver sees you (he or she could be distracted, under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, or just not see you). Make eye contact with drivers as they approach. * Be predictable. Cross streets at crosswalks or intersections when possible. This is where drivers expect pedestrians. * If a crosswalk or intersection is not available, locate a well-lit area, wait for a gap in traffic that allows you enough time to cross safely, and continue to watch for traffic as you cross. * Be visible. Wear bright clothing during the day, and wear reflective materials or use a flashlight at night. * Avoid alcohol and drugs when walking; they impair your judgment and coordination.
That's fine and doesn't really alter my point. My point was that even had Uber been in compliance with the law the scope of outcome still likely involves injury whereas had the pedestrian been in compliance with the law no accident or injury would have occurred. Consequently, the pedestrian's negligent behavior had a far larger share of the responsibility for the occurrence/severity of the accident. That it's actually a 40 or 45mph zone is just evidence to foists the responsibility for creating the accident more towards the pedestrian.
Also: Pedestrians have the right of way in most states, as I recall.
Yes and no. While it is true that a vehicle must yield for a pedestrian in a crosswalk most states have laws governing pedestrians while causes people to misunderstand the statement. It is typically illegal for a pedestrian to enter a roadway if doing so would constitute a hazard for the vehicular traffic meaning if traffic would have to take action to respond to the pedestrian the pedestrian is crossing illegally.. It's also typically illegal for a pedestrian to enter a roadway between two controlled intersections with marked and signaled crosswalks.
While a vehicle should attempt to yield to a pedestrian in an illegal crosswalk it is rare that blame will be placed on the driver for such an accident since the accident only occurred because of an illegal action taken by the pedestrian.
Here's another way to break it out. Both parties were in violation of the law and we can extrapolate the consequence if one or the other party was in compliance with it.
The Uber vehicle exceeded the speed limit by 3 mph. Had it been in compliance with the law the impact would have probably still occurred and the pedestrian would either be dead or have suffered serious injury due to the impact.
The pedestrian was crossing the road in violation of the law. Had the pedestrian been in compliance the pedestrian would have not been in the road in this location and the accident would not have occurred.
Pedestrians are willfully ignorant of the law and violate it under a potentially fatal misunderstanding of physics. In general, across the US the only place where pedestrians have the right of way over cars is at crosswalks at controlled intersections when signally indicates that a pedestrian may pass the cross walk. At all other places where it is legal for a pedestrian to cross a road they are almost always required to yield the right of way to traffic on the roadway. Another common law is that pedestrians are not allowed to cross a roadway between two controlled intersections where crosswalks exist.
70% of pedestrian fatalities do not occur at crosswalks. 34% of pedestrian fatalities involve a pedestrian with a BAC.08 or greater.
While the Uber car was violating posted speed limits by +3 mph the pedestrian was also violating Arizona pedestrian laws as well as Tempe city code. By Arizona law the car had the right of way and the pedestrian was supposed to yield it. By Tempe code the pedestrian was violating crosswalk law by entering the roadway outside of a crosswalk.
Had the Uber SDV been compliant with the law the pedestrian may have survived but probably with medical costs in excess of the funerary costs. Had the pedestrian been compliant with the law the pedestrian would be unharmed.
It's a lack of critical thinking skills combined with poor risk assessment. The simple fact is that if the pedestrian and vehicular injury/fatality rate were to be reduced by 50% from full blown adoption of self-driving vehicles it would be a technology well worth implementing.
I expect a 75-90% reduction in pedestrian vehicular fatality and injury rates. With a current rate of around 4000 fatalities and 50000 injuries I would consider self driving vehicles a success at only 1,000 deaths and 12,500 injuries a year. I would call it a phenomenal success at only 400 deaths and 5000 injuries a year.
There's one lamp and if it's even powered it probably doesn't illuminate much more than the "intersection" of that path. The only way you would see someone "illuminated" by that light is if their figure is obstructing light from what is illuminated by the lamp.
Regardless, if you pop into street view there's no-pedestrian signs.
69% occur at non-intersections. 20% are at intersections. The remainder occurs in locations like parking lanes, bicycle lanes, shoulders, etc.
72% occur in the dark, 25% at in daylight, 2% each for dusk/dawn.
26% of accidents occur from 6pm to 8:59pm. 23% occur from 9pm to 11:59pm.
49% of accidents that have fatalities involved alcohol on part of the driver or the pedestrian. 34% of fatal pedestrian accidents had a pedestrian with a BAC greater than.08. 15% of fatal pedestrian accidents had a driver with a BAC greater than.08.
Pedestrian fatalities are overwhelmingly (84.6%) caused by impacts with the front of the vehicle.
The big takeaways are the 70% occurring on the road at non-intersections, the 34% where pedestrians had a BAC greater than.08, and the 72% in the dark. People won't want to hear this but most pedestrian fatalities are caused by the pedestrian doing something stupid that the driver doesn't have sufficient time to react.
100% safety is prohibitively expensive. If pedestrian-automobile accident rates drop to 400 people killed and 5,000 injured each year then self-driving technology would be a phenomenal success at reducing accident rates by 90%.
Why is that so hard to believe, when it happens all the time?
For the same reason why people think driving is safer than flying. A human hitting a pedestrian won't make national news because it's common, boring, and unsexy. A self-driving car hitting and killing a pedestrian is rare and sexy and therefore national news worthy.
BT corn planted adjacent to non-corn crops caused moth numbers to decline in the area of non-corn crops. it sounds great to suggest that BT corn was infecting non-GMO corn, which there's evidence of, but that is hardly what the article was writing about unless you're seriously suggesting that BT corn is capable of cross-breeding with peppers and green beans in the wild.
The whole "gluten free" diet craze and celiac disease may be more of an allergy to genetically modified wheat than gluten, in my opinion.
Good thing it's just an opinion because you are horrendously ill-informed about those two concepts.
Gluten is a specific protein produced by wheat, barley, rye, and other grain crops. The issues with gluten manifest as either celiac's disease or non-celiac gluten sensitivity. Celiac's is an immune response that triggers in the small intestine which can lead to damage in the intestine which prevents nutrient absorption. People with this condition can eat wheat if it is the parts of the wheat plant that do not contain gluten. If you really want to go down this path of GMO inducing celiacs then by all means finance a study to identify whether GMO vs non-GMO gluten proteins differ as the reaction in the intestine is known to be to these specific proteins.
Wheat allergies, on the other hand, are when proteins in wheat, there's 27 of them including gluten, cause the body to create antibodies in response. Wheat allergy can manifest itself throughout the entire digestive tract as well manifest itself in the respiratory system with inflammation and tightening of the tissue. Since the allergy can be in response to any of the wheat proteins you can't have any wheat. Like the gluten concept, it's almost undeniable that wheat allergies have nothing to do with GMO products most since it is quite easy to show that individuals with wheat allergies do have allergic reactions to spelt.
Slashdot Mirror
In which case the system has to be secured against spoofing.
It really only solves the traffic stop problem. Meanwhile, people still have life threatening injuries that require transit to a hospital, buildings keep catching on fire, and police are often required to get to a point with all expediency.
And luckily we all believe the bullets drop out of the air at property lines and never crafted ordinances to punish people for discharging firearms in ways that contradict that belief!
You need a license to drive a car. You need to show that you know the rules to abide by when driving, and that you have sufficient skill and knowledge to minimize the danger you pose to others when driving.
You need a license to operate a vehicle on public roadways. It's a small but significant difference.
The statistics regarding gun death are the reason why the only sane headpiece regarding shooting and rifle control is Justice Paul Stevens. I may disagree with his stance but I agree that the method he proposes is the only sane method. The fact that a homicide death is 20x more like to be caused by a handgun over a rifle and the affirmation of DC vs Heller that owning a handgun is a protected right is one of those key supporting pieces. The icing on the cake is that you're twice as likely to get killed by lightning than during a shooting incident. Going after rifles is just smoke and noise. It's a gasp at something in ignorance of the facts which is why repealing the 2nd Amendment is the sane response for gun control.
However, repealing the 2nd Amendment does lead to certain philosophical questions that the country needs to face. This would be the first time the country is repealing an Amendment which claims the purpose of protecting individuals rights and it would be second time that an Amendment goes into effect which curtails privileges (the first time being the 18th Amendment which was repealed by the 21st). This has some troubling implications because if we think the protection of this right is no longer necessary, why then protect the other protected rights in the Constitution? Why would you think that the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, or 26th couldn't also be repealed?
That's a pretty low barrier you set. Let's at least drop it to something like account with a UID above 1500000.
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.
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.
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.
There's 34 sports in the summer Olympics. A sport in Olympic jargon is "all the events that are sanctioned by one international sport federation."
Aquatics, Basketball, Canoeing/Kayaking, Cycling, Gymnastics, Volleyball, Equestian, and Wrestling are multi-discipline sports.
Archery, Athletics, Badminton, Baseball, Boxing, Fencing, Field Hockey, Football (Soccer), Golf, Handball, Judo, Karate, Pentathlon, Rowing, Rugby, Sailing, Shooting, Skateboarding, Softball, Sport Climbing, Surfing, Table Tennis, Taekwondo, Tennis, Triathlon, Weightlifting are the remaining 27 sports.
Basketball, Baseball, Football, Golf, and Tennis are sports I would all peg as potentially not the top performers which is nearly 15% of the sports in the Olympics. As far as events go those constitute 14 events in the Olympics... out of 339 events for barely 4% of events.
Boxing is another sport in the Olympics that might not attract the top talent. That's another 13 events.
I'm not sure why you're modded insightful. Funny? Sure. This is not an insightful comment.
Theater is an overloaded term. The page you are referencing is referring to theater as an art form to which the movie art form is cinematography.
Theater as a building, which you would have been able to find by following the "other uses" link, is a type of building or environment that contains a stage and seating. Theaters can host a multitude of events from musical concerts, plays, comedians, or even cinema but it is best envisioned where live performers are upon the stage and the audience is in the seating.
The term theater can also reference a movie theater, because adjective-nouns are a subset of noun, which is a building that is setup specifically to host events for viewing cinema.
These are the basic guidelines the NHTSA gives for pedestrians. The pedestrian in this incident did the opposite for everything except the first and second point (which weren't relevant) and the last point which no one has indicated if it may have been a factor.
* Walk on a sidewalk or path when one is available.
* If no sidewalk or path is available, walk on the shoulder, facing
traffic Stay alert; don’t be distracted by electronic devices,
including smart phones, MP3 players, and other devices that
take your eyes (and ears) off the road.
* Be cautious night and day when sharing the road with vehicles.
Never assume a driver sees you (he or she could be distracted,
under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, or just not see
you). Make eye contact with drivers as they approach.
* Be predictable. Cross streets at crosswalks or intersections
when possible. This is where drivers expect pedestrians.
* If a crosswalk or intersection is not available, locate a well-lit
area, wait for a gap in traffic that allows you enough time to
cross safely, and continue to watch for traffic as you cross.
* Be visible. Wear bright clothing during the day, and wear
reflective materials or use a flashlight at night.
* Avoid alcohol and drugs when walking; they impair your
judgment and coordination.
That's fine and doesn't really alter my point. My point was that even had Uber been in compliance with the law the scope of outcome still likely involves injury whereas had the pedestrian been in compliance with the law no accident or injury would have occurred. Consequently, the pedestrian's negligent behavior had a far larger share of the responsibility for the occurrence/severity of the accident. That it's actually a 40 or 45mph zone is just evidence to foists the responsibility for creating the accident more towards the pedestrian.
Also: Pedestrians have the right of way in most states, as I recall.
Yes and no. While it is true that a vehicle must yield for a pedestrian in a crosswalk most states have laws governing pedestrians while causes people to misunderstand the statement. It is typically illegal for a pedestrian to enter a roadway if doing so would constitute a hazard for the vehicular traffic meaning if traffic would have to take action to respond to the pedestrian the pedestrian is crossing illegally.. It's also typically illegal for a pedestrian to enter a roadway between two controlled intersections with marked and signaled crosswalks.
While a vehicle should attempt to yield to a pedestrian in an illegal crosswalk it is rare that blame will be placed on the driver for such an accident since the accident only occurred because of an illegal action taken by the pedestrian.
Here's another way to break it out. Both parties were in violation of the law and we can extrapolate the consequence if one or the other party was in compliance with it.
The Uber vehicle exceeded the speed limit by 3 mph. Had it been in compliance with the law the impact would have probably still occurred and the pedestrian would either be dead or have suffered serious injury due to the impact.
The pedestrian was crossing the road in violation of the law. Had the pedestrian been in compliance the pedestrian would have not been in the road in this location and the accident would not have occurred.
Pedestrians are willfully ignorant of the law and violate it under a potentially fatal misunderstanding of physics. In general, across the US the only place where pedestrians have the right of way over cars is at crosswalks at controlled intersections when signally indicates that a pedestrian may pass the cross walk. At all other places where it is legal for a pedestrian to cross a road they are almost always required to yield the right of way to traffic on the roadway. Another common law is that pedestrians are not allowed to cross a roadway between two controlled intersections where crosswalks exist.
70% of pedestrian fatalities do not occur at crosswalks. 34% of pedestrian fatalities involve a pedestrian with a BAC .08 or greater.
While the Uber car was violating posted speed limits by +3 mph the pedestrian was also violating Arizona pedestrian laws as well as Tempe city code. By Arizona law the car had the right of way and the pedestrian was supposed to yield it. By Tempe code the pedestrian was violating crosswalk law by entering the roadway outside of a crosswalk.
Had the Uber SDV been compliant with the law the pedestrian may have survived but probably with medical costs in excess of the funerary costs. Had the pedestrian been compliant with the law the pedestrian would be unharmed.
It's a lack of critical thinking skills combined with poor risk assessment. The simple fact is that if the pedestrian and vehicular injury/fatality rate were to be reduced by 50% from full blown adoption of self-driving vehicles it would be a technology well worth implementing.
I expect a 75-90% reduction in pedestrian vehicular fatality and injury rates. With a current rate of around 4000 fatalities and 50000 injuries I would consider self driving vehicles a success at only 1,000 deaths and 12,500 injuries a year. I would call it a phenomenal success at only 400 deaths and 5000 injuries a year.
There's one lamp and if it's even powered it probably doesn't illuminate much more than the "intersection" of that path. The only way you would see someone "illuminated" by that light is if their figure is obstructing light from what is illuminated by the lamp.
Regardless, if you pop into street view there's no-pedestrian signs.
Statistics about pedeistian-automobile crashes are collected. Here's some from the NHTSA.
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.g...
73% occur in urban areas. 27% in rural areas.
69% occur at non-intersections. 20% are at intersections. The remainder occurs in locations like parking lanes, bicycle lanes, shoulders, etc.
72% occur in the dark, 25% at in daylight, 2% each for dusk/dawn.
26% of accidents occur from 6pm to 8:59pm. 23% occur from 9pm to 11:59pm.
49% of accidents that have fatalities involved alcohol on part of the driver or the pedestrian. 34% of fatal pedestrian accidents had a pedestrian with a BAC greater than .08. 15% of fatal pedestrian accidents had a driver with a BAC greater than .08.
Pedestrian fatalities are overwhelmingly (84.6%) caused by impacts with the front of the vehicle.
The big takeaways are the 70% occurring on the road at non-intersections, the 34% where pedestrians had a BAC greater than .08, and the 72% in the dark. People won't want to hear this but most pedestrian fatalities are caused by the pedestrian doing something stupid that the driver doesn't have sufficient time to react.
100% safety is prohibitively expensive. If pedestrian-automobile accident rates drop to 400 people killed and 5,000 injured each year then self-driving technology would be a phenomenal success at reducing accident rates by 90%.
Why is that so hard to believe, when it happens all the time?
For the same reason why people think driving is safer than flying. A human hitting a pedestrian won't make national news because it's common, boring, and unsexy. A self-driving car hitting and killing a pedestrian is rare and sexy and therefore national news worthy.
BT corn planted adjacent to non-corn crops caused moth numbers to decline in the area of non-corn crops. it sounds great to suggest that BT corn was infecting non-GMO corn, which there's evidence of, but that is hardly what the article was writing about unless you're seriously suggesting that BT corn is capable of cross-breeding with peppers and green beans in the wild.
The whole "gluten free" diet craze and celiac disease may be more of an allergy to genetically modified wheat than gluten, in my opinion.
Good thing it's just an opinion because you are horrendously ill-informed about those two concepts.
Gluten is a specific protein produced by wheat, barley, rye, and other grain crops. The issues with gluten manifest as either celiac's disease or non-celiac gluten sensitivity. Celiac's is an immune response that triggers in the small intestine which can lead to damage in the intestine which prevents nutrient absorption. People with this condition can eat wheat if it is the parts of the wheat plant that do not contain gluten. If you really want to go down this path of GMO inducing celiacs then by all means finance a study to identify whether GMO vs non-GMO gluten proteins differ as the reaction in the intestine is known to be to these specific proteins.
Wheat allergies, on the other hand, are when proteins in wheat, there's 27 of them including gluten, cause the body to create antibodies in response. Wheat allergy can manifest itself throughout the entire digestive tract as well manifest itself in the respiratory system with inflammation and tightening of the tissue. Since the allergy can be in response to any of the wheat proteins you can't have any wheat. Like the gluten concept, it's almost undeniable that wheat allergies have nothing to do with GMO products most since it is quite easy to show that individuals with wheat allergies do have allergic reactions to spelt.