DNCs Coll(F)usion GPShip Strzok an IceberGowdy says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
The ‘lawyering up’ isn’t in the least surprising. But this quote is almost laughable, if it weren’t associated with a tragic death: “Fall-out from the accident could stall the development and testing of self-driving vehicles, …” I doubt it will ‘stall the development’ of AIVs, but it will certainly stall implementation of the newer systems on public roadways…. if local and national regulatory authorities have any common sense… and/ or fear of attorneys.
That is too be expected. The lawyer probably got in touch with her, when was is distraught, they will turn to anything to help heal their situation and understandable. If someone a said they would not sue in this situation, they are lying. The lawyer is probably doing it for free in exchange for certain licensing rights and tv appearances. I am not fan of lawyers, but in this case, it’s understandable.
I don’t understand the dynamics of a homeless mother whose daughter now is filing for liability benefits. Where was her attention to her mother while she was “simply” homeless? Was the lawsuit filed once she found out this was an Uber driverless car because of the $$ signs that go with the name? As a human being to another, I am sympathetic to the loss of a loved one but the lawsuit already filed just speaks of other motives than emotional loss.
This entire incident was very tragic. There is plenty of blame to go around on this one though, starting with the victim who was breaking the law by jaywalking, then the city of Tempe who although the posted signs saying to not cross where this incident occurred still designed the roadway median with a cutout that invites someone to do what the victim did and finally Uber and the employed driver. From the video of the incident you can clearly see the victim crossing the street but unfortunately not in time for a human driver to avoid the accident but clearly in time for a attentive driver to have greatly reduced speed and potentially not have hit the pedestrian at the speed this accident happened at. Although it is certainly not uncommon for motorists to exceed the speed limit why was a self driving vehicle driving at 40 in a 35 mile per hour zone? It will also be interesting to see if the convicted felon who was in control of the vehicle, while I can only assume from the video was texting or some other activity at the time, has a history of being inattentive while in control.
Bottom line is while the pedestrian has comparative negligence in this matter Uber and their carrier should be planning on writing some big checks on this one.
IMHO, the two-decade-old conviction for attempted armed robbery by the safety observer isn’t relevant. What is relevant: it’s hard for drivers to be fully vigilant all the time when DRIVING a car. Is it reasonable to expect full vigilance when the car is literally driving itself? Is having a safety observer important to increasing safety while they’re learning about autonomous technology, or just a feel-good measure to overcome public objections? I’m sure the driver feels horrible, but I can’t blame Vasquez.
The question the investigation should try to answer is: would a typical human driver at night have been able to avoid killing a woman walking her bike at night across a 5-lane road under these conditions? I will look forward to the answer to that one.
Big checks? I’d love someone in Claims to chime in on this one. What kind of dollar value is assigned to a homeless person who was apparently only supporting herself? A cold question for sure, but I’ve not worked in Claims and am interested in how that is calculated.
OK. There will be a rush by numerous parties to throw money at the claim. The value of the claim is debatable. The only definitive claim would be for pain and suffering. Crossing illegally at night will be a defense. The percentage of blame assigned to the deceased will govern. In Texas, I would opine that it would be more than 50%. Therefore, no claim. Money will be paid so that the technology can be protected from discovery. This is a pure defense cost settlement. And the daughter, she better get ready for some hard hard questions about her relationship with her mother. The emotional side of her claim will be destroyed.
The ‘lawyering up’ isn’t in the least surprising. But this quote is almost laughable, if it weren’t associated with a tragic death: “Fall-out from the accident could stall the development and testing of self-driving vehicles, …” I doubt it will ‘stall the development’ of AIVs, but it will certainly stall implementation of the newer systems on public roadways…. if local and national regulatory authorities have any common sense… and/ or fear of attorneys.
Do you do anything besides comment on these articles? Asking for a friend.
A lawyer already? Has she even held her mother’s funeral?
Very sad – article states the victim was homeless. Doubtful she had a life insurance policy that would pay for her funeral expenses.
That is too be expected. The lawyer probably got in touch with her, when was is distraught, they will turn to anything to help heal their situation and understandable. If someone a said they would not sue in this situation, they are lying. The lawyer is probably doing it for free in exchange for certain licensing rights and tv appearances. I am not fan of lawyers, but in this case, it’s understandable.
I don’t understand the dynamics of a homeless mother whose daughter now is filing for liability benefits. Where was her attention to her mother while she was “simply” homeless? Was the lawsuit filed once she found out this was an Uber driverless car because of the $$ signs that go with the name? As a human being to another, I am sympathetic to the loss of a loved one but the lawsuit already filed just speaks of other motives than emotional loss.
This entire incident was very tragic. There is plenty of blame to go around on this one though, starting with the victim who was breaking the law by jaywalking, then the city of Tempe who although the posted signs saying to not cross where this incident occurred still designed the roadway median with a cutout that invites someone to do what the victim did and finally Uber and the employed driver. From the video of the incident you can clearly see the victim crossing the street but unfortunately not in time for a human driver to avoid the accident but clearly in time for a attentive driver to have greatly reduced speed and potentially not have hit the pedestrian at the speed this accident happened at. Although it is certainly not uncommon for motorists to exceed the speed limit why was a self driving vehicle driving at 40 in a 35 mile per hour zone? It will also be interesting to see if the convicted felon who was in control of the vehicle, while I can only assume from the video was texting or some other activity at the time, has a history of being inattentive while in control.
Bottom line is while the pedestrian has comparative negligence in this matter Uber and their carrier should be planning on writing some big checks on this one.
IMHO, the two-decade-old conviction for attempted armed robbery by the safety observer isn’t relevant. What is relevant: it’s hard for drivers to be fully vigilant all the time when DRIVING a car. Is it reasonable to expect full vigilance when the car is literally driving itself? Is having a safety observer important to increasing safety while they’re learning about autonomous technology, or just a feel-good measure to overcome public objections? I’m sure the driver feels horrible, but I can’t blame Vasquez.
The question the investigation should try to answer is: would a typical human driver at night have been able to avoid killing a woman walking her bike at night across a 5-lane road under these conditions? I will look forward to the answer to that one.
Big checks? I’d love someone in Claims to chime in on this one. What kind of dollar value is assigned to a homeless person who was apparently only supporting herself? A cold question for sure, but I’ve not worked in Claims and am interested in how that is calculated.
OK. There will be a rush by numerous parties to throw money at the claim. The value of the claim is debatable. The only definitive claim would be for pain and suffering. Crossing illegally at night will be a defense. The percentage of blame assigned to the deceased will govern. In Texas, I would opine that it would be more than 50%. Therefore, no claim. Money will be paid so that the technology can be protected from discovery. This is a pure defense cost settlement. And the daughter, she better get ready for some hard hard questions about her relationship with her mother. The emotional side of her claim will be destroyed.