Comment on Men Harassed A Woman In A Driverless Waymo, Trapping Her In Traffic

• FireRetardant@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Yea I’m not too keen on giving authorization to hit pedestrians. If I feel threatened in my car, I am not allowed to run over the person so why should a driverless car gain that right? And if the panic button is going to call the police, how is that any different from the passenger using their phone to contact police? Seems like extra steps of middlemen and confusion when the passenger could just call once they feel the need.

  I could defintely see a case for some extra safety features that help keep the doors locked and shut, maybe thicker windows too if needed to prevent robberies/assaults.

  source

  • Zak@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    If I feel threatened in my car, I am not allowed to run over the person

    You are not allowed to run people over merely because you feel threatened.

    You are allowed to use deadly force, in the USA when you reasonably believe that it is necessary to prevent someone from unlawfully killing, causing serious physical injury, or committing a short list of violent felonies. The harassment described in the article probably does not rise to that level, though an ambitious lawyer might try to describe intentionally causing the car to stop as carjacking or kidnapping.

    source

    • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      probably

      Yeah somehow I don’t think tipping a fedora counts lol

      source

      • Zak@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        It’s likely the harassers can be prosecuted for false imprisonment, a misdemeanor. It is illegal to use deadly force such as hitting people with cars to prevent/terminate a misdemeanor.

        source
    • MsPenguinette@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Is there any law in any state that would allow you to kill a 3rd party to escape being killed yourself? (If there were, I’d probably opt for not living in that state)

      source

      • NotAnotherLemmyUser@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        What do you mean by “allow you to kill a 3rd party”?

        Like if rioters are breaking into your window and start trying to pull you out through it, then you floor it and kill someone else in the crowd who wasn’t actively breaking into your car?

        This is something that’s going to vary from state to state, but ultimately it will be a case by case decision where a jury will decide if the use of deadly force was reasonable.

        You will be judged based on other’s perception of the events, not based solely whether you yourself thought you were in danger or not.

        So, someone trying to “drive slowly” through a group of protesters would probably be found at fault, while a car that was stuck trying to wait patiently suddenly having a Molotov cocktail thrown on it would be judged differently. Even then they will need to consider whether you could have just gotten out of your car and run.

        reuters.com/…/fact-check-drivers-dont-have-the-ri…

        source
      • AA5B@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        Sure, there are some states that let you mag dump through your front door if someone rings the doorbell

        source
      • tal@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        I vaguely remember reading in my criminal law textbook, years back, that murder is one of the few exceptions to the doctrine of necessity, so I don’t think that it’s ever legally-permissible to explicitly kill some random person to save yourself or someone else. IIRC the rationale was that it prevents thing like terrorist groups from coercing someone to do actions for them by threatening someone else.

        That being said, there are obviously points where people are forced to take actions where either one group of people is going to die or another; in ethics, the trolley problem is a well-known example. For a maybe-less-artificial problem, closing hatches in a ship where not everyone is out of a compartment to prevent the ship from going down, say. I don’t know how law applies in the situation of weighing lives; my assumption is that it doesn’t mandate inaction.

        source
  • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    The “hitting pedestrians” is an extreme hypothetical, and not one you should particularly get hung up on. But it is one that still has to be considered. Passive security measures only go so far for the passenger.

    Realistically, a car can get out of many situations without hitting hostile pedestrians, such as reversing rapidly and then driving in an opposite travel lane to bypass the blockage. Or hopping a curb and using a sidewalk if it is not occupied (or just blasting the shit out of the horn if it is occupied). All things that waymo’s auto mode cannot and will not do, because it doesn’t have the reasoning to understand when such measures are necessary.

    source
  • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    If you legitimately believe your life is in danger, you have the right to escape or defend yourself, even if that means running someone over. This has happened in multiple countries with similar outcomes.

    source
  • nyan@lemmy.cafe ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    And if the panic button is going to call the police, how is that any different from the passenger using their phone to contact police? Seems like extra steps of middlemen and confusion when the passenger could just call once they feel the need.

    Think of it as a backup for the phone in the case where, say, there’s an adult and a kid in the car, the kid has no phone of their own, and the adult loses consciousness with their phone locked. Or the car is being actively jostled by a group of people (say it drove into the middle of an embryonic riot), causing the passenger to drop their phone, whereupon it slides under the seat. Or the phone just runs out of charge or doesn’t survive getting dropped into the passenger’s triple-extra-large fast-food coffee. It won’t be needed 99% of the time, but the other 1% might save someone’s life, and (presuming the car already has a cell modem it in) the cost of adding the feature should be minimal.

    source
  • GBU_28@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    If you are in literal, actual mortal danger you are generally allowed to escape with the goal of escape. Especially relevant where waymo operates.

    source
• Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  I can’t think of a NY cab driver that couldn’t have handled this situation.

  This guy isn’t doing fedoras any favors either - I’m already a bit on the skeptical side when I see a fedora.

  source

  • TachyonTele@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Fedoras haven’t done anyone any favors ever.

    source
• empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  If a man jumps out in front of my car in traffic and points a pistol at me after I stop. I am going around or thru him and there is no other option. Anyone else trying to stop me even without visible weapons is going to get evasive maneuvers to protect myself because I am not dealing with that bullshit. That includes weaving far outside my travel lane or going over a sidewalk. That is self defense and a split second decision. Waymo prioritizes all outside obstacle avoidance which means it doesn’t even want to leave it’s set travel lane, which makes them trivial to stop like this with no recourse.

  The point I am making is that self driving has a really hard time interpreting traffic or passenger emergency edge cases like this. A remote operator could make the decision to drive over curbs and other lanes, if free, to save the passenger, and realistically should avoid hitting pedestrians too… but in the case of an armed attacker - well, yknow. Like force for like force. And the medical point still stands. A panic button is needed.

  source
• 5in1k@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  I’m hitting them. I don’t know their intentions. But my intent would be to get away however I can.

  source