I’m not saying the robot is “right”, but the number of people crusing around with their high beams on as a matter of corse, is as they saying goes, too damn high. So I can absolutely believe that a vehicle’s high beams limited its “vision” because that regularly happens to me driving and as a pedestrian.
Now if the robot fled the scene that’s a completely different issue for which it’s operators are responsible.
If those high beams are legal, then all that means is the robot can’t safely operate under normal/legal conditions. If it can’t operate safely, why is it allowed in public?
I’m not saying that you’re “wrong”, but the idea of giving the benefit of the doubt to a piece of technology in service of a corporation is, as the saying goes, bonkers.
I’m not saying the robot is “right”, but the number of people crusing around with their high beams on as a matter of corse, is as they saying goes, too damn high. So I can absolutely believe that a vehicle’s high beams limited its “vision” because that regularly happens to me driving and as a pedestrian.
Now if the robot fled the scene that’s a completely different issue for which it’s operators are responsible.
If those high beams are legal, then all that means is the robot can’t safely operate under normal/legal conditions. If it can’t operate safely, why is it allowed in public?
It’s not legal to use them in a city. If you’re blinding someone with them, it’s not legal (at least in my US state)
High beams are NOT legal in the city. And they were in all likelyhood not being used in this scenario.
I doubt the bus driver was using high beams in the city, there’s no point at these speeds and it’s illegal anyway.
I’m not saying that you’re “wrong”, but the idea of giving the benefit of the doubt to a piece of technology in service of a corporation is, as the saying goes, bonkers.
They’re too low to the ground for high beams to make a difference.