Whoa settle down there with your judgment calls. You've made a lot of presumptions given that you know as little as everyone here does. The fact is that as far as we can tell, the only witness is the Uber driver. No investigation has been completed yet, certainly none that justifies you being able to say "she decided to walk in front of a moving automobile". Saying it is "ultimately her fault" is nonsensical. The very blog post you use as an authority on jaywalking says, as I noted, that the driver may still be at fault in Arizona. So where do you get off, with what little you know, in saying that it was the victim's fault?
No, that's not how American law works. Despite the protections of the press in the First Amendment, the author of a breaking news article is not considered the sole arbiter of truth. The linked-to article sources the claim to the police:
> Elaine Herzberg, 49, was walking outside the crosswalk on a four-lane road in the Phoenix suburb of Tempe about 10 p.m. MST Sunday (0400 GMT Monday) when she was struck by the Uber vehicle, police said. The car was in autonomous mode with an operator behind the wheel.
Should go without saying that the police are also not the sole arbiters of truth, nor are they the authority that ultimately decides who is at fault.
edit: re your edit that the headline should read: “Alleged jaywalker dies from Injuries After Being Hit By Self Driving Uber”. Alleged by whom? No official police statement has called her such, even as they've described her as walking outside the crosswalk:
It may be later that she is determined to be a jaywalker. But this is a breaking news article and it appears the reporters have gone with what the broadest description.
We’ll have to agree to disagree. The available facts say that she was jaywalking. You want to argue with that, apparently just to argue. So that’s OK, enjoy your argument.
