Veteran developer Steve Lacey (Google, Microsoft) Killed in Auto Accident

http://www.loopinsight.com/2011/07/25/veteran-developer-steve-lacey-killed-in-driving-incident/

by msredmond • 15 years ago

187 143 15 years ago

rhizome2• 15 years ago

disaggregated: http://www.king5.com/news/Road-rage-suspected-in-fatal-Kirkl...

kenjackson2• 15 years ago

Given the high rate of deaths on the road, the fact that we still don't take wreckless driving very seriously is frustrating.

Accidents happen, but deaths due to aggressive driving should be treated like someone aggressively using a firearm in a populated area.

city41• 15 years ago

He was charged with Vehicular Homicide[0], which is a felony. I'm curious how many years of jail he gets. Wikipedia states that in Georgia it's 3-15 years of prison, and in Louisiana it's 2-20 years. I agree it'd be nice if this was more consistent state to state though.

[0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_homicide#Washington

nplusone• 15 years ago

That is exactly what cars are. They are weapons loaded with ammunition and ready to be fired. It baffles me that many people don't seem to be aware of this material reality.

speckledjim9• 15 years ago

The number of deaths is around 90 a day in the US. That's down from like 115 a day 10 years ago. Still more to be done, but I don't think it's as high as some think.

amichail2• 15 years ago

It's time to have mandatory computer controlled cars.

Driving manually should be illegal unless done on a race track.

ghurlman• 15 years ago

As a developer, you should know better than that.

amichail2• 15 years ago

As a human, you should know the limits of the human brain.

Driving is a task best suited for computers.

In a few decades, people will look back with amazement at the crazy risks people took by driving manually.

andywood• 15 years ago

Just remember, it isn't a matter of whether self-driving cars ever fail. They only have to do better than the current, abysmal ~3,000 fatalities per day.

ristretto2• 15 years ago

Indeed that's what came to my mind. I mean it's freaking 2011, we are not supposed to be dependent on other' people's irresponsibility on the road when there are ways to reduce the risk. I know people will still find stupid ways to kill themselves, but at least take them out of the ubiquitous road network.

speckledjim9• 15 years ago

This is like saying "N people die from food poisoning at restaurants each year. Lets ban food created by humans, and only allow food created and tested by machines".

I don't really want to live in that world.

jterce• 15 years ago

> it's freaking 2011, we are not supposed to be dependent on other' people's irresponsibility.

I cannot think of any implementation of society where this could possibly be true. If you really feel this way you need to find yourself a deserted island and become completely self-sufficient.

rimantas• 15 years ago

What a sad day it will be when driving becomes illegal for humans, I hope it is far far away. There are much cheeper ways to make car traffic safer than going automatic cars route.

nettdata• 15 years ago

And by pure coincidence I'm listening to Red Barchetta as I read your comment.

speckledjim9• 15 years ago

That will never happen, and I'm glad it won't.

VladRussian3• 15 years ago

speaking about more realistic scenario. We already have air bags inside the car. Honda started to make external airbags targeted at car-to-human cases. There is no technical problem to implement external airbags for car-to-car cases. Start with mandatory front-side external airbags on heavy cars like full-size SUVs and work the way down and sideways.

watmough• 15 years ago

Very very sad to lose someone to such a stupid accident.

As far as computer controlled cars, my instinct is to disagree with you, but living in Houston, and considering that 10%-20% of Americans are taking prescription drugs including hypnotics/sedatives (Ambien etc.), and anti-psychotics/anti-depressants (Prozac, Wellbutrin, Cymbalta etc.), it's easy to agree that perhaps, many many people just should not be driving.

Or in some cases, leaving the house at all.

Besides, we have computer controlled cars, just not widely available.

imajes7• 15 years ago

Why? Plenty of people are able to drive a vehicle, and drive it well. It's the many who aren't, or choose to ignore the rules who are causing danger.

The "every vehicle should be automated" line is lowest common denominator FUD.

How about we start by actually applying a proper, rigorous upgrade to the new driver education from the DMV, and stop treating driving as a right, and instead a privilege?

How about we improve mass transit and spend more money fixing roads (which is a bigger cause of accidents than you might imagine).

What about Signage, which is over abundant and people ignore - or important signage which is entirely missing (many median lines are faded away - not repainted due to lack of funding)?

And what about the culture where drinking and driving is, in many states, acceptable? Why isn't there a dramatic and meaningful campaign to demonstrate that there is really only zero-tolerance to drink-driving that is acceptable?

The United States approach to driving is embarrassing and smacks of largesse, but for much of the country, where there is an abundance of space and empty roads, is tolerated.

Accidents happen routinely in city centers and suburban areas where the laws and driving regulations are not more stricter, but often just as (if not more) relaxed.

There isn't consideration given to heavy traffic, patterns of driving, preparing for exits - it's just expected that as long as you know how to steer and stop at a sign, you are qualified to drive.

Computer controlled cars is a stupid argument (mostly because they are almost already there, in the full part, and certainly the car you are driving is doing more work than you are to get you to your destination). Never mind the fact that the better answer is amazing and undeniable mass transit, obviating the need for personal car ownership in densely populated areas, and a 2-3 magnitude leap in driver education to prevent such stupidity on the roads as a basic requirement to even begin to address this problem.

abduhl3• 15 years ago

States have been cracking down on drunk driving for the past decade or two. If there ever was a culture where drinking and driving was "acceptable" on a state level it has long since disappeared.

If you don't mind me asking, where do you currently live (you're clearly from the Queen's domain) and, if it isn't in the US, how did you get this idea that the US doesn't take drinking and driving seriously?

coryrc• 15 years ago

> mass transit ... densely populated areas

In America, we have a choice of where we want to live. Do we take the .011%/yr chance we will die in an auto accident and also have a large house, yard, and live in a safer neighborhood for our kids? Or do we live in the higher-crime urban center, but ride mass transportation? He tragically lost on these odds, and it is a sad day for his family and humanity.

I have a friend who commutes to work via motorcycle, so he can spend an extra 40 minutes a day with his kids versus driving a car. Or hours better than mass transit.

But, you are correct that drivers need to pass stricter testing and it needs to occur regularly, but since the majority of voters are bad drivers and could very well lose their licenses, it will always be opposed.

mootothemax2• 15 years ago

It's time to have mandatory computer controlled cars.

Driving manually should be illegal unless done in a race track.

I guarantee there are just as many incompetent programmers as there are incompetent drivers out there. The difference is: I can't control the other drivers; nor who wrote their car's controller code.

When it comes to my own two hands, at least I get a say in deciding that the roads are are a bit slippery today, and that I'm consequently going to reduce the total kinetic energy involved.

daeken3• 15 years ago

> I guarantee there are just as many incompetent programmers as there are incompetent drivers out there.

I don't feel this is a good argument against self-driving cars, mandatory or not. Code and hardware for self-driving cars would go through multiple passes of design, heavy testing both automated and manual, etc. The same can't be said of snap decisions by drivers. There will absolutely still be accidents with self-driving cars -- mechanical failures, bugs in software, etc. The question is whether that number would be significantly lower than the number of accidents that happen right now, and I find it highly doubtful that it wouldn't be.

sixtofour• 15 years ago

With individuals self-driving, we get a certain number of unrelated accidents, injuries and fatalities.

With computer controlled cars we'll have zero day hacks and crashes, viruses, and near simultaneous accidents all due to the same unpatched bug.

I would never leave the house on Wednesdays in such a world.

nowarninglabel• 15 years ago

While I don't doubt there will be exploits, we already have a great deal of computer automation in vehicles, and one way they prevent potential hacks of the system is by making it one-way only. Plus, car manufacturers are actually being proactive about protection. More info: http://www.caranddriver.com/features/11q2/can_your_car_be_ha...

redthrowaway• 15 years ago

While we're at it, the fact that some people behave irresponsibly when drunk is clear evidence that we should ban the consumption of alcohol. What could go wrong?

free• 15 years ago

Googler or not, it is sad to see a life being taken away that could have been avoided. It bothers me no end that by just following basic rules and safety mechanisms, so many lives could be saved, but we still hear the same tragic stories day in and day out. I've been surrounded with tragic news of accidents last week and also bothered that I might be a victim with no fault of mine.

wushupork• 15 years ago

What's also sad is if it wasn't Steve Lacey or somebody in the industry this article would have probably been flagged and buried.

I too am bothered by the fact that I can be the best driver and never get into an accident only to be killed by some fool who never should be in a car in the first place.

sliverstorm5• 15 years ago

Oh good, another rager in an SUV. Why is it always an SUV?

sipior7• 15 years ago

Because the guy driving a compact is under no illusions regarding his odds of surviving a crash :-)

runevault• 15 years ago

Which is amusing since a fair few SUVs are top heavy and easily flip over <_< (technically not an issue with straight on front/rear crash, but still)

tomjen3• 15 years ago

Actually given how safe modern cars are, you are quite likely to survive some pretty serious crashes.

ahmetalpbalkan• 15 years ago

RIP. Here's his Google+ page. https://plus.google.com/108067740959569006573

old programmers never die, they just recurse.

xigit• 15 years ago

I just found his G+ page yesterday and add him to one of my G+ circle. So this news really surprise me.

My condolences to his family.

ChristianMarks2• 15 years ago

From the article:

  Lacey was apparently the victim of road rage, and not the 
  intended victim, either. An imbecile (that authorities 
  believe had been drinking) smashed into him in pursuit of 
  another car.

If I were a journalist, I would not be employing terms like "imbecile"--especially not to refer to someone capable of road rage.

keiferski• 15 years ago

It's poor professionalism and poor writing, not poor self-preservation. I doubt that the writer is putting himself in danger by calling someone an imbecile.

doyoulikeworms• 15 years ago

Especially since it would seem that the drunk driver would be imprisoned for his actions.

ChristianMarks2• 15 years ago

It's all of those, of course. An egregious word choice could very well endanger a writer's career.

quizbiz• 15 years ago

Tragic. Just a few days ago, he celebrated his tenth wedding anniversary... https://plus.google.com/108067740959569006573/posts/LJ1Z2Bvh...

todayiamme• 15 years ago

It makes me realise that life can end in seconds, and I did nothing to cherish it and my loved ones today.

Hisoka2• 15 years ago

Me neither. I was very complacent too and complained about lots of things today. Ah well, I can start tomorrow...

vaksel• 15 years ago

what kind of car was he driving?

I know it says BMW...but I can't really imagine getting killed by a car that's already slowed down enough due to rolling. Unless it was a convertible, then I can somewhat see it...but even then it's kinda hard to imagine as well

chaz• 15 years ago

M3 Convertible. http://www.king5.com/news/Road-rage-suspected-in-fatal-Kirkl...

RomP• 15 years ago

Actually, it's M3 _Coupe_: the roof has been cut off by the emergency crew. You can see the bottom parts of the C-pillars in the video on king5.com

Riley• 15 years ago

Here's an article with more photos of both vehicles, and a video of local news coverage: http://www.kirotv.com/news/28655663/detail.html

ltamake• 15 years ago

That's awful. RIP. :(

Hisoka2• 15 years ago

Life is unfair. Unfortunately, there's not much you can say when these things happen. You just have to remember that any day can be your last, that you can't live life with any regrets. As for his wife, it'll take time to recover from this. Death is a part of life. It'll happen to everyone of us eventually.

mkramlich• 15 years ago

It's quite possible that the drunk who killed Steve Lacey may end up serving less jail time than Aaron Schwartz will for running a mass file download script. Perspectives on our law: mind blown, consistently.

Veteran developer Steve Lacey (Google, Microsoft) Killed in Auto Accident

Related Stories