21st Century Car Crash Summary

You were in a terrible car accident. One that sent you into that putrid hospital across the street from Walmart where all the stoners hung out. Of course, even the paramedics were incompetent in your town. They were trying, I guess. They were able to successfully pull you from your collapsed car that had been flipped over seven times. Or so you were told. Well I guess you weren’t told, but you overheard. You were unconscious, but you had full capability of your hearing, only you had no way of communicating this. You were around the clock fed heavy sedatives through the IV tapped to the inside of your limp arm.

The Car Crash Study was done in 1974 by Loftus and Palmer that was aimed to test their theory that the language used in an eyewitness testimonies can alter the eyewitness’s memory of the event. They got 45 American students and showed them 7 films of traffic accidents, ranging from 5 to 30 seconds, in a random order. Afterwards the subjects were asked to describe what happened as if they were at the accident. They were then asked more specific questions such as, “About how fast were the cars going when they (smashed/ collided/ bumped/ hit/ contacted) each other?’. This was to see if the if the verb used in the question would affect the answers given by the subjects which it did. In the next part of the experiment they showed 150 students a one-minute film that showed a car driving through the country side followed by four seconds of a multiple traffic accident. Afterwards they split the students into three groups and asked them different questions. The first group was asked “How fast were the cars going when they hit each other?”, the second group was asked “How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?”, and the third group was kept as a control group and wasn’t asked anything. One week later they were asked, without seeing the film, ten questions about the film. One question asked “Did you see any broken glass? Yes or No?” which there was none. The results showed that more participants who were asked “How fast were the cars going when they smashed?” said

Getting in a car accident is an unnerving thing. You never know what can happen and if your lucky you might see it coming. Well as often as these accidents occur, it happened to Spencer and I on one fateful summer evening.

if the car gets into a car accident and if it wasn't the other driver's fault who are they going to blame do they blame the cars programing,the maker of the car, or the driver of the other car. What if someone was in a driverless car and that car gets pulled over who are they going to blame if the passenger wasn't driving?

As written in the article, “Facts to Know About Fatal Car Accidents,” “Fatal car accidents cannot be classified as a uniform situation; individuals unfortunately die in car accidents for a variety of reasons, some of which cannot be controlled by either party involved. (3)” For example, if a biker mistakenly bikes into the car lane at night, and a car driver does not notice the person, there could be a possibility that they crash into each other and nobody could prevent it from occurring. As a result, the biker may die, yet the driver should not be punished for his death since he/she could not avert the accident. Moreover, if an individual in a vehicle kills another person, but there were issues with the road, such as dangerous cracks or bumps, or severe weather, then the individual does not deserve to be punished. It is the government's responsibility to repair damaged roads, so if a person drives on a damaged road, loses control, and mistakenly crashes into a car in the opposing lane, he/she should not be punished because the person did not have control over the situation. Likewise, if a driver steers off the roads in dangerous weather conditions such as heavy hail or thunderstorms and accidentally hits another driver, he/she is not accountable of the death of the driver. Thus, a driver who unintentionally caused the death of another human should not be

The accident that killed Mr. Brown was neither his fault nor the Tesla’s. Although the Tesla’s cameras failed to see the truck, Mr. Brown did too. When the Tesla’s autopilot feature is turned on, an acknowledge box comes up informing the driver that autopilot is an assist feature that requires you to keep your hands on the wheel at all times. This message shows that the autopilot feature is not completely self-driving. You are still required to pay attention to what is going on. For example, when

My research topic is about who is responsible for a self-driving car accident? The driver or the car manufacturer? This is probably the most popular topic regarding on self-driving cars, it is an ethical issue since it involves both human being and technology. Based on deontology ethical framework, the driver cannot responsible for a faulty self-driving system, but driver does have the responsibility to control the car in current social culture.

“Good look out there Bill!” yelled my friend Randall. I could hardly hear him over the roar of my plane engine taking off. I gave him the thumbs up and closed my cockpit of my C-117 Skytrain. I knew that what I was doing was one of the most dangerous things to do in the US military. My plane got even louder and started taxing down the runway while other people were directing me. I felt the rush of the plane as he started taking off.

Since the beginning of self-driving cars which first began in 1925 with the creation of the Houdina Radio Control; a car operated by two cars, a transmitter, and an antenna, to now - the futuristic dream of these autonomous cars have transformed into the reality of cars we see now. These cars are nothing short of the new technology advances that have occurred over the past decade. However, with these advances many question whether or not these cars are ready to be sold, due to the fatal accident that occurred May 2016 involving the autonomous Tesla and a white truck. Due to the Tesla not being able to detect the white tractor because of technological issues, the tesla failed to stop, and since the driver was not prepared to steer, it lead to the fatal collision eventually leading to the death of the tesla owner. With the increase of these cars on the road, from companies like BMW, Daimler, Ford, Apple, Uber, and Google, this poses a serious threat to not only the people operating this autonomous vehicle but also to the surrounding drivers. I believe that autonomous cars should not be put on the road, and that these cars are not beneficial to the population.

Motor vehicle crashes (MVCs) are the leading cause of death in US teens, encompassing greater than one in three deaths.1 Based on 2010 data, 2,700 teenagers were killed and 282,000 were treated in Emergency Departments (ED) for injuries sustained in MVCs.1 That equates to approximately seven teens between the ages of 16 and 19 dying daily due to injuries sustained in MVCs. Mile per mile teens aged 16 to 19 are more likely than those aged 20 and older to be involved in a fatal crash.2 People aged 15 to 24 years old encompass approximately 14% of the US population; however, males and females of this age group account for 30% ($19 Billion) and 28% ($7 Billion) of the total costs of injuries due to MVCs, respectively.3

First off, the car moves, which is a trait of fire (Bava Kama 1:1 “The fire is more strict that the pit since its nature is to move around and cause damage.”). Next, the car is forewarned along with the fire (Bava Kama 9b-10a). This is because Rachel Rubenstein knew she was purchasing a vehicle with inherent danger when she bought the car, regardless if it was driverless or regular. According to Bava Kama 2:6, “A person is always considered “warned” [i.e. fully liable] whether accidental or intentional, whether awake or asleep.” Mrs. Rubenstein was warned of the possible danger according to this statement. Finally, the car is not alive. As we have stated the cars artificial intelligence is just that, artificial. It doesn’t have free will nor does it have a neshama (soul). The type of damage also reflects on the next step that must be taken in the Beit Din. According to Shemot 22:5 and Bava Kama 22a-b, whomever set the fire is responsible for the damages it causes. This mean that Rachel Rubenstein is responsible, both because she bought the car in the first place and also for starting the car, both of which could be likened to the starting of the

Some cars slowed down and pointed their headlights in our direction. They probably saw our vehicle’s tracks in the smashed snow. One family stopped and rolled down their window.

It the driver of the car hits a stationary object like a fence or a telephone pole and you are injured, you will want to

It’s a dark rainy night. You and your family are coming home from a late night family party. As a car is coming through an intersection another car cut in front of it. The driver decides to hit the brakes so you can avoid the car, but as he presses the brakes, the car loses control on the slick wet road. He is not able to gain control and at that point he has endangered the lives of himself and many others on the road. This is just one example of the many types of things that occur in our streets everyday. All that would have been needed to avoid this situation would have been a traction control system in his car, which would have detected that the car was skidding and would have applied the brakes to

First of all, making a moral decision in some emergency situation may be impossible for an autonomous car. Newcomb (2014) mentions the “tunnel problem” which was a hypothesis about autonomous cars in emergency. There was an autonomous car traveling in a single-lane highway, and a boy who was crossing inside tumbled when the car was going into a tunnel. The car had to strike either side of the tunnel entrance with sacrificing the life of passengers, otherwise hit the boy to death. In this situation, whichever the autonomous car choice, it will take the blame of immorality. Specifically, if an autonomous car was set as