[hazardmat]

Yes. They said "preliminarily" the Uber driver was not at fault. Judging from the footage, that was reasonable. You can't put the blame off the woman, you can't just cross a road at night like that and expect to be noticed.

Accidents like that happen all the time, it's only because of the self-driving car that this is newsworthy.

Imagine if there wasn't any dashcam footage and this was a normal car with a distracted driver, without any other witnesses they would likely be off the hook.

[jacquesm]

A distracted driver has the option to tell the police they were distracted. Or are you of the opinion that since the woman was dead it didn't matter anymore?

[hazardmat]

First of all, in this scenario, the woman would have at least shared some of the blame.

Second of all, what are the odds that a human who just killed a woman would admit even to themselves that they were the one to blame in such an accident? Practically zero. Cognitive dissonance won't allow it. In their minds, they weren't distracted, at least not enough to take any of the blame.

[FireBeyond]

> Second of all, what are the odds that a human who just killed a woman would admit even to themselves that they were the one to blame in such an accident? Practically zero.

As a paramedic who sees fatality accidents? Hardly. "Oh my god, I've killed someone!" is a fairly common statement, or paraphrasing.

[hazardmat]

"Oh my god, I accidentally killed someone" is something quite different from "Oh my god, my willful negligence alone has caused a fatality and I'm ready to take full responsibility".

While not entirely impossible that the latter happens, it's highly unlikely. What's much more likely is that these people are saying this because they want to hear "Oh, but it's not your fault" from somebody else.

[jacquesm]

> First of all, in this scenario, the woman would have at least shared some of the blame.

Possibly. But a distracted driver is definitely at fault, no matter what. Driving is a full time occupation.

> Second of all, what are the odds that a human who just killed a woman would admit even to themselves that they were the one to blame in such an accident?

Pretty good. Most people are honest, even in a bad situation.

> Practically zero.

You speak for yourself.

> Cognitive dissonance won't allow it. In their minds, they weren't distracted, at least not enough to take any of the blame.

Well, you probably have your reasons for writing this under a novelty account. But it's clear that when you are at fault it is best for everybody involved to recognize that fact, even if it means discomfort for you.

I get that in todays climate it's what you can get away with, but I don't think that strategy will hold in the longer term. It's way each and every lawsuit is appealed to the highest courts because nobody bothers to just admit their errors and it's why when there is a car accident the perpetrators will sue the victims. But that's wrong on many levels and I refuse to subscribe to that view.

[hazardmat]

>> Possibly. But a distracted driver is definitely at fault, no matter what.

Both parties are at fault, I'm not denying that. That's not the point.

>> Pretty good. Most people are honest, even in a bad situation.

What gives you that idea? People are dishonest all the time, especially to themselves. It's a basic coping strategy.

>> Well, you probably have your reasons for writing this under a novelty account.

Yes, it's that I'm saying "controversial" things that inevitably collide with the ideas of all the "righteous" people around here.

>> But it's clear that when you are at fault it is best for everybody involved to recognize that fact, even if it means discomfort for you.

That's cute and all, it's just not how human psychology works. There are endless examples of this, from the pettiest thieves to the biggest mass murderers.

>> I get that in todays climate it's what you can get away with, but I don't think that strategy will hold in the longer term.

If you sincerely don't believe you are at fault (even if that is objectively wrong) and there is no evidence to prove otherwise, you'll get away with it. That's how the legal system works, if it works. In fact, if you were to get convicted despite believing to be innocent, that's (psychologically) the worst thing that could happen to you.

On the other hand, if you happen to be the odd one out that seeks atonement for their sins, getting convicted may help you out. That's probably a pathology in and of itself though.

>> But that's wrong on many levels and I refuse to subscribe to that view.

But... that's entirely irrelevant. Have you considered that maybe your moral ideals are distorting your view of physical reality? Some sort of magical thinking towards justice?

[davidgould]

> That's cute and all, it's just not how human psychology works. There are endless examples of this, from the pettiest thieves to the biggest mass murderers.

This argument fails on both moral and statistical grounds: most people are not petty thieves or mass murderers nor should we accept that "getting away with it" is an acceptable basis for human behavior.

[hazardmat]

I'm making a prediction on what's likely to happen based on well-researched human psychology. Again, the keyword is "cognitive dissonance". It encompasses all aspects of human life, the petty theft is just an example.

The moral dimension to this is entirely besides the point, the fact that you even bring it up tells me you are probably "suffering" from what is called a "Moralistic Fallacy".

I'm not making a moral argument or judgment here, but there's certainly the related question of whether someone who believes their own lies is truly a liar.