Unless it is self defense. https://www.cnn.com/2015/05/20/us/new-york-bikers-attack/ind...

Unless you have the wrong political opinions, like James Fields, in which case you get 2 life sentences plus 419 years.

Murder isn't a political opinion.

>Pedestrians always have the right of way including when breaking the law.

This is not true, nor does it make sense. If you are in the middle of the highway going 70 mph and someone is standing on the side of the road wanting to cross you do not have to yield and stop your vehicle. Stopping in the middle of the highway is dangerous since it isn't excepted.

Pedestrians always have the right of way ... on roads where they can be. Pedestrians and cyclists are forbidden on 70 mph highways. If I ever see someone on foot on such highway, after doing my best to avoid that person, I'll call 911 asap to report it.

For anyone mad enough to claim right of way toward a pedestrian, in any situation, just think about the shitload of legal hurdles awaiting you down the road. Not worth it by any standard.

In Washington state (I don’t know CA rules), pedestrians have to yield to traffic if they are not crossing at an intersection, but they are still permitted to cross as long as they yield to traffic. The exception is if they cross between two intersections that are controlled by lights, then that is considered jay walking.

“Right of way” and “must yield” does not mean a car is allowed to hit a pedestrian who doesn’t follow the rules of course. The pedestrian is just not following the rules and can be cited for that. But practically speaking, most collisions involving such situations are not faulted against the driver unless some other factor is involved. It’s still a mess for them, however.

They might not have the legal right of way, but you're still in trouble if you run them over. So by all means, just don't try to kill anybody even if you have right of way (I'm appalled I even have to say this).

Right of way has nothing to do with colliding with people or cars. If I enter a 4 way stop second, but ignore right of way and go first that doesn't mean I'm going to hit another car.

> So, the robot basically ignored the first law

you don't know that. She was first hit by a regular car and could have been hidden from the robot's view until after the initial collision.

No the robot was left holding the bag after a disgusting person drove into this pedestrian and as a result of hitting the pedestrian with their car tossed the pedestrian directly in front of the driverless car. Which immediately freaked out and tried it’s best to pick a safe failure mode… in this case it picked wrong and that’s a problem… but a human is clearly the primary offender here and the driverless car was given an out of context problem because the human broke the law by doing a hit and run on this pedestrian

Generally I agree, but it was not out of context problem. It is sort of real world occurrence drivers (both human and non) are expected to handle.

It did try to handle it, by coming to a complete stop as fast as possible and avoiding further movement. I definitely think it should be smart enough to not stop “on top of an obstacle” under the car… but as far as everything before it stopping on the pedestrians leg… seemed like it would be hard to get a human driver to do better given the likely lack of a lot of “hit and run happens right in front of me” training data… zebras vs horses and all that. I expect one they will definitely add more “accident close by” data to the training data… and two they will get the damn thing not to stop on top of an unknown obstacle.

This wouldn't have been a problem if there were two driverless cars.