advertisement
Forums

The Forum is sponsored by 
 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the Tips and Deals forum
FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: Blankity Blank
Date: March 23, 2018 08:21PM
Citing videos made in the area by others, presumably under similar conditions, Ars headlines their article, “Police chief said Uber victim “came from the shadows”—don’t believe it”.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: pRICE cUBE
Date: March 23, 2018 08:33PM
I believe the chief made an assumption based on watching the dash cam video without understanding that the human eye can see more detail than what the dash cam can "see" in terms of dynamic range. Dynamic range is how much of a scene our eyes or a sensor can take in and show detail in brighter and darker areas. All this is pretty much moot as the liar system should have been programmed to pick her up no matter what the available lighting was without the vehicle headlights.

I noted this before in the chart below:





Ways to improve web conference image and sound quality. [forums.macresource.com]


Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: billb
Date: March 23, 2018 08:51PM
The dashcam is irrelevant.

The driver wasn't looking and apparently neither was the car.



The Phorum Wall keeps us safe from illegal characters and words
The doorstep to the temple of wisdom is the knowledge of one's own ignorance. -Benjamin Franklin
BOYCOTT YOPLAIT [www.noyoplait.com]
[soundcloud.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: h linamen
Date: March 23, 2018 09:03PM
I'm not at all in favor of "driverless cars". Think it's stupid. But let's not overlook this unfortunate lady crossed a roadway in front of an oncoming car with headlights on. No crosswalk.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: mattkime
Date: March 23, 2018 10:36PM
NYC has a HUUUUUGE problem with police officers blaming the victim in automobile accidents. Apparently other places have this problem too.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: tenders
Date: March 23, 2018 11:16PM
Like a lot of fatal accidents involving machinery, several systems failed serially here when any one of them could have prevented the situation.

She should not have crossed the road without looking (day or night). But she did. This happens. Sometimes people die when it does. She accepted some semblance of this risk when she chose to cross, and perhaps when she decided to ride the bike in the first place.

The driver should have been paying closer attention. But he wasn’t. That happens. Sometimes people go to jail when it does. He. Had. Only. One. Job. (Or she, as may be the curious but irrelevant case here.)

The car should have detected her and responded somehow. But it didn’t. That’s the only mystery to me about this sad situation. Seems like this is the ground zero case for what a driverless car is supposed to detect and respond to, and it did nothing.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: gabester
Date: March 23, 2018 11:24PM
Quote
tenders
this is the ground zero case for what a driverless car is supposed to detect and respond to, and it did nothing.

Yup. Something in telemetry and autonomic response should have triggered "slow down" which might have saved the pedestrian's life.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: JoeH
Date: March 24, 2018 02:20AM
Quote
tenders
She should not have crossed the road without looking (day or night). But she did. This happens. Sometimes people die when it does. She accepted some semblance of this risk when she chose to cross, and perhaps when she decided to ride the bike in the first place.

That is a big assumption on your part. She had already crossed a couple lanes of road at the time of the accident, and at the speed the vehicle was traveling it was over 100 yards away at the beginning of the video. So she may have thought she had a clear enough road to cross. And if the vehicle had slowed, changed lane, or done anything she probably would have been okay.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: RAMd®d
Date: March 24, 2018 04:41AM
That is a big assumption on your part.

These threads have been rife with assumptions based on no actual evidence and unsupported by the video.

And as it turns out, the video is possibly suspect. The Chief may have looked at it and not waited for the investigation to be completed. That happens a lot.

The Ars article makes some assumptions based on video they didn't shoot. Their statement about headlights supposed be able to illuminate the road two seconds ahead needs a lot of qualification. They did get the 5sec of distraction right.

Autonomous driving has a future. We need to know why the Uber car failed, besides the driver being out to lunch. Maybe it's been stated, but I haven't seen anything about what the driver could do if he/she thought the car not performing properly. Certainly a driver had or should have had override capability, otherwise the overwatch function is (and possibly was) worthless.





Your boos mean nothing to me, I've seen what you cheer for.

Insisting on your rights without acknowledging your responsibilities isn’t freedom, it’s adolescence.

We are a government of laws, not men.

Everybody matters or nobody matters.

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men except
by believing all possible evil of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

You make me pull, I'll put you down.

I *love* SIGs. It's Glocks I hate.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: Robert M
Date: March 24, 2018 08:59AM
Matt,

Living on Long Island and visiting NYC quite often, I gotta say there is truth when police (and drivers) blame the pedestrian for collisions. All too often the pedestrian involved absolutely without a doubt contributed to it. And it's gotten _much_ worse with the advent of smartphones. Much much worse. Drivers can only do so much to account for pedestrian irresponsibility.

Robert
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: decay
Date: March 24, 2018 09:30AM
I'm not in favor of autonomous driving vehicles, not one bit.



---
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: Rick-o
Date: March 24, 2018 10:36AM
I'll bet some of the same concerns and disdain were voiced when that dang 'ol horseless carriage started appearing on the roads.



Mr. Lahey: A lot of people, don’t know how to drink. They drink against the grain of the liquor. And when you drink against the grain of the liquor? You lose.

Randy: What the @#$%& are you talking about?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: MacJeepster
Date: March 24, 2018 10:43AM
I'm sure more people will be killed, but the point is the tech will learn, adapt and not make the same mistake again.
Meanwhile, human-driven cars will also kill pedestrians.



-mj
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: Acer
Date: March 24, 2018 11:00AM
Graveyards are full of drivers, pedestrians and cyclists where someone involved should have seen it coming.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: C(-)ris
Date: March 24, 2018 01:40PM
Either person could have prevented the accident by looking up. I get the car driver not paying attention, that happens all the time and the car driver isn’t likely to be injured driving along, autonomous or not. I don’t understand why the lady didn’t even look up. She literally walked across the street without any sense of self preservation. I just don’t get it. There is no way I would walk a bike across ANY street any ANY time without constantly looking around to make sure i wasn’t going to be hit.



C(-)ris
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Throwback Thursday Signature:
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: RAMd®d
Date: March 24, 2018 02:41PM
I don’t understand why the lady didn’t even look up. She literally walked across the street without any sense of self preservation.

You don't know that. You've made a huge assumption. She can't be scene looking up in the footage of the Uber video. That much is true.

But subsequent video shows the street to be pretty well lighted, startlingly so compared to the Uber video. It's possible that she did look before crossing, saw the car back much farther than the driver saw her, and assumed she had time and that the car would slow or maneuver around her. And it's possible that driver saw her when he/she first looked up and assumed the car would handle the situation and when back to whatever was more interesting than driving.

Yes we can blame the victim and it's easy to do so. People do it all the time, out of disdain, grief, or anger. That doesn't mean the victim is at fault.

In CA and many other states, the driver of a vehicle is required by law (stated or implied) to avoid collisions if it's possible to do so. I.E. you are required to prevent a collision if possible. Failure to do so puts you at fault, possibly not only as much as a jaywalker, but as the sole primary collision factor.

People define what they 'know' differently, as in 'You know that's what they were thinkin...' when in fact you can't know what they are thinking.

My definition (beyond the Funkin' Wagnalls) is what you can testify to in court without getting your ass reamed by the defense. What you observe is one thing. What you know is often much less.





Your boos mean nothing to me, I've seen what you cheer for.

Insisting on your rights without acknowledging your responsibilities isn’t freedom, it’s adolescence.

We are a government of laws, not men.

Everybody matters or nobody matters.

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men except
by believing all possible evil of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

You make me pull, I'll put you down.

I *love* SIGs. It's Glocks I hate.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: sekker
Date: March 24, 2018 02:53PM
Not a doubt that the first such death would come from Uber. That company has no moral compass.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: Kraniac
Date: March 24, 2018 03:00PM
Quote
pRICE cUBE
I believe the chief made an assumption based on watching the dash cam video without understanding that the human eye can see more detail than what the dash cam can "see" in terms of dynamic range. Dynamic range is how much of a scene our eyes or a sensor can take in and show detail in brighter and darker areas. All this is pretty much moot as the liar system should have been programmed to pick her up no matter what the available lighting was without the vehicle headlights.

I noted this before in the chart below:


No doubt..the video of the driver showed him not focused on what was going..he would have seen this person if he had been paying attention..bunch of garbage going off of a video..not even close to what the human does..
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: Filliam H. Muffman
Date: March 24, 2018 03:08PM
It's really bad when a pedestrian's attention is taken up by a phone at the same time when the driver's attention is taken up by a phone.



In tha 360. MRF User Map
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: Racer X
Date: March 24, 2018 03:19PM
Quote
Robert M
Matt,

Living on Long Island and visiting NYC quite often, I gotta say there is truth when police (and drivers) blame the pedestrian for collisions. All too often the pedestrian involved absolutely without a doubt contributed to it. And it's gotten _much_ worse with the advent of smartphones. Much much worse. Drivers can only do so much to account for pedestrian irresponsibility.

Robert

If you drove the streets of downtown Seattle, the pedestrians crossing legally are in the minority. And those crossing illegally, many are just downright ignoring basic self preservation.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: space-time
Date: March 24, 2018 05:48PM
Quote
Filliam H. Muffman
It's really bad when a pedestrian's attention is taken up by a phone at the same time when the driver's attention is taken up by a phone.

but in this case I don't think the woman crossing the street was looking at the phone.

and speaking about the driver: is it a man or woman? I saw both "he" and "she" used when talking about this driver.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: Racer X
Date: March 24, 2018 07:33PM
Transgender identifying as female. And doing it poorly.

In case anyone wants to give me @#$%& over that comment, my partner's middle kid is transgender. Looked WAY better as a young man. But their life I suppose, not mine.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: AllGold
Date: March 24, 2018 07:51PM
One of the things I don't know is how the override procedure works. Does the human driver just hit the brakes and/or grab the wheel and steer or is there a switch that has to be flipped? How long does it take to override?



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: Racer X
Date: March 24, 2018 08:05PM
I would imagine anything over a certain amount of resistance kicks off auto control. I'm sure that speed is tied into the cruise control circuits, that's easy to over ride, same with braking. Steering probably works off stepper motors. Easy to over ride. Many modern vehicles don't have a physical direct link between the steering wheel and the front wheels anymore. Its drive by wire. Probably why Uber chose that Volvo model.

No one is experimenting with dirt cheap old school technology cars/SUVs/crossovers. Too hard to cobble together. New drive by wire models I assume. Ever see the BS the Mythbusters had to go through just to get it to go straight?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: space-time
Date: March 24, 2018 08:54PM
Quote
Racer X
... Ever see the BS the Mythbusters had to go through just to get it to go straight?

no, I would be interested. Any link?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: Racer X
Date: March 24, 2018 09:20PM
Lots of episodes where Grant had to gerry rig a car/truck so they could crash it. Real PITA to get it to just go straight using basic RC controls and stepper motors and servos.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: Rolando
Date: March 25, 2018 10:11AM
Quote
Racer X
Transgender identifying as female. And doing it poorly.

In case anyone wants to give me @#$%& over that comment, my partner's middle kid is transgender. Looked WAY better as a young man. But their life I suppose, not mine.

Kinda irrelevant, but we already have a gender neutral pronoun in English, as well as the neutral "he" for a person!

I think the a basic question is would a human driver "probably" avoided the crash? That one, I can say, is probably not. That is an inattentive driver, and the AutoM8* would do better that him (generic he).

*[www.technovelgy.com]



San Antonio, TX (in the old city)


"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
“Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Eli Weisel

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

"I don’t want to see religious bigotry in any form. It would disturb me if there was a wedding between the religious fundamentalists and the political right. The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it." - Billy Graham 1981

"Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise" - Barry Goldwater
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: JoeH
Date: March 25, 2018 12:19PM
Quote
Rolando
I think the a basic question is would a human driver "probably" avoided the crash? That one, I can say, is probably not. That is an inattentive driver, and the AutoM8* would do better that him (generic he).

*[www.technovelgy.com]

That is a big maybe. Was the driver inattentive because they had bought into the "autonomous" hype that is going around? At best the cars are semi-autonomous at this point in development, their operation requires constant monitoring in case the system fails to detect something or reacts improperly.

The comparison has been made with planes largely being able to takeoff, fly and land under automatic controls. But the pilots get training on monitoring and when to step in and either change or override those autopilot settings. Some accidents have been traced to improperly detecting or reacting to problems, so has led to changes in training. In the case of investigation into this car fatality, I would guess they will be looking into what training the driver got before being placed behind the wheel.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: RAMd®d
Date: March 25, 2018 05:26PM
That is a big maybe.

Agreed.

Based only on the first video, it looks like a human operating an auto-car would have been unable to prevent a collision. The subsequent video shows the street surpassingly well lit. Without knowing the actual speed and distances involved, it's still guessing, but I'd guess an attentive driver might have avoided the collision entirely.


In the case of investigation into this car fatality, I would guess they will be looking into what training the driver got before being placed behind the wheel.

Agreed. Even though the car may have malfunctioned and should have (I assume) seen the victim under the circumstances, the driver couldn't do anything to prevent it because he wasn't paying attention. But I'd be surprise if the training in this instance, was at fault.

'is it ok if I do stuff on my phone?'
'Sure, just don't watch movies or play a DVD.'

I think somebody must have said 'you have to watch the road'. That's part of the reason for the internal camera view. We don't really know what garnered so much of the drivers attention. I'd like to know that.

Even if the pedestrian walked across the street without looking, I think the driver if not the car, should have seen her. But the whole assuming facts not in evidence thing is a thing.





Your boos mean nothing to me, I've seen what you cheer for.

Insisting on your rights without acknowledging your responsibilities isn’t freedom, it’s adolescence.

We are a government of laws, not men.

Everybody matters or nobody matters.

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men except
by believing all possible evil of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

You make me pull, I'll put you down.

I *love* SIGs. It's Glocks I hate.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: Racer X
Date: March 25, 2018 06:07PM
Based on Uber's criteria for their regular TNC drivers, their autonomous back-up driver training is likely non-existent.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: GGD
Date: March 26, 2018 12:28AM
Quote
Racer X
Based on Uber's criteria for their regular TNC drivers, their autonomous back-up driver training is likely non-existent.

Some more to consider:

Many other companies use two humans in the test car, one to monitor the road and one to monitor the equipment. Uber uses one for both, but we still don't know if this person was looking down to perform other job functions or was distracted by something else.

I have difficulty referring to this person as the "driver" as is done consistently in these threads, since at no time was this person "driving", the actual driver was a computer.

[jalopnik.com]

In another thread I posted links to Uber's video of their "vehicle operator" training so you can at least see what they claim, and decide how much of the video is marketing hype vs reality. Everyone should watch it and think about how things they say should have applied to the recent accident as they watch.

Quote
GGD
Here's Uber's web page about their ATG group, and a video about their self driving car. They claim to use cameras, lasers and radar. They also cover the training of the people behind the wheel.

[www.youtube.com]
[www.uber.com]

At about 1:20 is an example of a pedestrian stepping out in front of the moving vehicle.

[forums.macresource.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2018 12:29AM by GGD.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: rjmacs
Date: March 26, 2018 09:51AM
Quote
Racer X
Transgender identifying as female. And doing it poorly.

In case anyone wants to give me @#$%& over that comment, my partner's middle kid is transgender. Looked WAY better as a young man. But their life I suppose, not mine.

This comment is bigoted, and your having a partner with a trans kid doesn't change that.



rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: michaelb
Date: March 26, 2018 09:56AM
I hadn't realized this was a one way road. I can't fathom how someone could walk out directly in front of a car at night on a one way road. I have to assume "something" was going on with that person.

But the car should have slowed or braked. To me, the issue isn't how far ahead the car should see at night, because at minimum, it had 1.4 secs to see and it still didn't try to stop. The default should be an alarm or to brake or slow the instant the system detects a problem or a fault.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: JoeH
Date: March 26, 2018 10:31AM
Quote
GGD
I have difficulty referring to this person as the "driver" as is done consistently in these threads, since at no time was this person "driving", the actual driver was a computer.

The person behind the wheel is still the "driver", just as the person in the seat at the controls of an airplane is still the pilot even if it is on autopilot. The vehicles as much as they are touted as being autonomous are still at the semi-autonomous stage. AS for legally, that person is going to be considered the driver and face whatever potential consequences go along with that.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: Racer X
Date: March 26, 2018 04:47PM
Well, in maritime law, even if the ship is on autopilot, the captain is still ultimately responsible, even if off-duty and in his/her quarters.

Remember the Exxon Valdez? 3rd mate was on duty, but the captain was blamed.

To me, under the circumstances. the human in the automated vehicle should have stepped in. That's why they are there.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: GGD
Date: March 26, 2018 06:07PM
Quote
Racer X
Well, in maritime law, even if the ship is on autopilot, the captain is still ultimately responsible, even if off-duty and in his/her quarters.

Remember the Exxon Valdez? 3rd mate was on duty, but the captain was blamed.

To me, under the circumstances. the human in the automated vehicle should have stepped in. That's why they are there.

How would you apply it to this situation.

A google self driving car with no human driver controls (no steering wheel or brake/gas pedals). A single passenger in the car that is legally blind.

[www.youtube.com]

Who gets blamed if this vehicle is at fault in an accident during this trip?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: Racer X
Date: March 26, 2018 07:22PM
My comment had to do with the human tasked as being the back-up. Their JOB was to prevent the vehicle from hitting stuff if the auto stuff didn't do its job properly. Just because they weren't touching the wheel doesn't absolve them from fault.

Passenger in the back seat is not a designated back-up to the autonomous car.


No human back-up is YEARS down the road, so to speak.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2018 07:24PM by Racer X.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: AllGold
Date: March 26, 2018 08:04PM
I can see how the backup driver would be inattentive when the car handles everything correctly 99.99999% of the time (except this time).



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: GGD
Date: March 26, 2018 10:17PM
I suspect that this will wind up in front of a jury, and it will be Uber and not the person sitting in the driver's seat that is being sued. The reason is pretty simple. The lawyer looks at the two choices and thinks about who can pay the most. Same as if it was a WalMart truck (ask Tracy Morgan).

But the lawyers should really dig into all of the data in the car's computer at the time. What had each of the sensors seen in the past 30 seconds (Video, Radar, Lidar). From that data, what objects did the system identify, and how far ahead. If the sensors detected the woman, what type of object did she get classified as. Were objects further away than this woman identified correctly? How far ahead?

This needs to be treated more like a plane crash, and determine what sequence of events occurred that led to a crash, and how did that get missed by a system designed to prevent it.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: rjmacs
Date: March 27, 2018 06:10AM
Quote
Racer X
Well, in maritime law, even if the ship is on autopilot, the captain is still ultimately responsible, even if off-duty and in his/her quarters.

Remember the Exxon Valdez? 3rd mate was on duty, but the captain was blamed.

To me, under the circumstances. the human in the automated vehicle should have stepped in. That's why they are there.

On review, the captain was eventually cleared...



rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2018 06:12AM by rjmacs.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: FU: Ars Technica questions video of fatal Uber accident
Posted by: JoeH
Date: March 27, 2018 12:11PM
Quote
rjmacs
Quote
Racer X
Well, in maritime law, even if the ship is on autopilot, the captain is still ultimately responsible, even if off-duty and in his/her quarters.

Remember the Exxon Valdez? 3rd mate was on duty, but the captain was blamed.

To me, under the circumstances. the human in the automated vehicle should have stepped in. That's why they are there.

On review, the captain was eventually cleared...

Actually he wasn't. He just was not convicted on the felony charges, his lawyer argued successfully that the blood sample was taken too long after the incident and handled improperly to be used to establish his blood alcohol level accurately. It had tested at .061 on a sample taken about 10 hours afterwards.

He was convicted of misdemeanor charges and fined $50k plus ordered to do 1000 hours of community service. His masters license was suspended for 9 months by the Coast Guard.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 108
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 5122 on October 03, 2020