Driver hits woman in S.F., then Cruise driverless car runs her over

Re:Driver hits woman in S.F., then Cruise driverless car run... by seanmcdirmid on Tuesday October 03, 2023 @01:01PM (#37754578)

> In fact, the driver of the car did not have "the right to enter the intersection" if it meant they were going to run a pedestrian over, no matter what color the light was.

I've been in this situation before. I'm the third car in a line going on a green light at a light, and all of a sudden an unhoused neighbor pops in the intersection crossing, I slam on my brakes because I don't have the "right" to hit him, but damn, that was close.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Driver hits woman in S.F., then Cruise driverless car run... by SoftTalker on Tuesday October 03, 2023 @09:24PM (#37759797)

If someone essentially jumps into traffic, you probably will be found to be not at fault if you hit the person. Not that you wouldn't do everything in your power to avoid it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Driver hits woman in S.F., then Cruise driverless car run... by seanmcdirmid on Tuesday October 03, 2023 @11:14PM (#37760436)

In many cases you won't be found at fault, and probably in the vast majority of cases you won't be found criminally at fault (and in some jurisdictions, you are at fault just because you are in a car, and it doesn't matter how poorly the pedestrian behaved). However, it would still be a mess physically and mentally. No one wants that experience in their head for the rest of their lives.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Driver hits woman in S.F., then Cruise driverless car run... by JdeBP on Wednesday October 04, 2023 @07:31AM (#37763649)

An argument regularly put forward by Ashley Neale (YouTuber and driving instructor, and erstwhile soccer player) in the U.K.. Not being found at fault isn't the only factor.

[ Parent | on HN ]