Please stop spreading misinformation. It was only dark in the DVR footage provided by Uber. Actual photos show it was pretty well lit. https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/uber-self-driving-tempe...

> Further, the report says that as long as Vasquez met the minimum visual acuity for a driver's license under Arizona law, and with the lighting conditions at the scene, she "could have seen and recognized that a person was walking across the road from a distance of 1700 feet away with or without the Volvo’s headlights."

It's pretty abhorrent that jaywalking is even considered a factor in the eyes of the law. What if you were senile or a child or blind or mentally unwell or intoxicated or running on little sleep, and just took a stumble onto the road? Suddenly your slaughter doesn't matter because you weren't walking on some white paint at the time? I think this needs to be changed.

Sure, but that's a problem of the legal system.

Uber was still reachable by authorities, and did show up in court.

All I am saying is that self-driving companies aren't going to pull off a hit-and-run and dodge the fact that an accident did happen. So one doesn't really need to worry about how a self-driving car deals with the note-on-windshield part. More than likely their HQ would be aware of the accident remotely and have legal responsibility to call 911 immediately if necessary. And in the event that a car's algorithm pulled off a hit-and-run on minor property damage, the company would still be easily reachable by authorities and respond to a court summons.