Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco • Hacker News Board

Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco

#111

Post by Spivak » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 2:12 AM UTC

bko wrote: post #102

dsl wrote: post #8

Uber is a company built on ignoring laws. Everything they did in the beginning was against some form of taxi or car hire regulation, in the name of disruption. (Regardless of what you think of the laws in question, they were still being broken in the eyes of most regulators) I don't know how I feel about that type of corporate philosophy (or Facebook's "move fast break things") in light of projects where people can a…

> in light of projects where people can actually get killed. Compared to what? Most states give out licenses to 16 year old kids with a few hours of driving school. Once you get a license you never get retested for vision or driving ability. There are very dangerous elderly drivers on the road and car accidents are the leading cause of death of 1-44 year olds. Some allowable risk has to be accepted in order to have p…

I'm going to talk about my state's perspective because what you're saying sounds like madness.

> 16 year old kids with a few hours of driving school

The standard curriculum for 16 year old drivers is 12-16 hours of in class lecturing, 5 hours of in-car instruction with a licensed professional, a minimum of 50 hours of in-car instruction from a guardian or family member, a nuanced written test, and an hour in-car examination.

That's just to get a restricted license. Until you get your real license 6 months later you have to additionally obey the following:

* No passengers except for your guardian, parent, or instructor.

* No driving after 11 PM.

* Absolutely no cell-phone use (even hands free).

* Any ticketable violation has a mandatory court appearance and will trigger a second round of more difficult driving instruction.

> Once you get a license you never get retested for vision or driving ability.

I have terrible vision and I have had to go through the test three times; after the third time I now have to my to wear my glasses to drive. It happens every time you have to renew your license.

> car accidents are the leading cause of death of 1-44 year olds

That's a bit misleading, there isn't much else that kills young people.

My point is that in situations where there is that kind of risk involved we actually to go through a lot of effort to mitigate it.

Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco

#112

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 2:20 AM UTC

johnchristopher wrote: post #33

JamilD wrote: post #15

I want self-driving cars to happen as quickly as possible, but Uber seems like they were extremely reckless and negligent here. Why not apply for a permit and stay on the safe side? And with at least two reported incidents of these cars running red lights, it seems like driver training and attentiveness was lacking. If the software wasn't ready, fine, but you have to be aware of that and train your drivers to be 100%…

Then we are better off driving for real because `not driving, meaning not being in control, but being ready to take the helm at any time` must be more exhausting (because you have to focus on everything not under your control vs focus on everything that you don't have control minus what you actually control) and increase our reaction time (since some time will pass between the moment you notice you have to take the h…

[deleted]

Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco

#113

Post by Animats » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 2:20 AM UTC

dmix wrote: post #110

Animats wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CA DMV also requires companies testing autonomous vehicles to report all their crashes and disconnects. Here are all those reports.[1][2] 20 companies have signed up. This is basic data collection to help decide when a system is safe for deployment. Uber apparently tried to evade this minimal level of scrutiny. Looks like it didn't work. [1] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/auton... [2] https://…

I can think of a number of ways to collect this data without requiring a special permit. The police are in coordination with California, so incidences involving semi autonomous vehicles can be collected using existing systems. I'm also sure there are means to shutdown Uber's autonomous testing via court order. Additionally insurance and drivers licenses are already regulated. I'm still not convinced of the necessity.…

The data collection required for autonomous vehicles includes even very minor accidents. The idea is to collect data on what failed and why before somebody gets killed. Unlike regular accident data, all reports are public. This lets us see that Google's repeat problem is being rear-ended when their cars stop while entering an intersection because they detected cross-traffic. It also tells us that Cruise Automation hit a parked car on 4th St in SF for no good reason.

Anybody testing autonomous vehicles has this data. They just have to send it in.

Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco

#114

Post by ClassyJacket » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 2:22 AM UTC

jacobolus wrote: post #58

detaro wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious, have you reported those things to uber/given appropriately bad ratings? (Uber always claims the rating system should filter unsafe actors out quickly)

I don’t have Uber installed on my phone. I mostly walk or take the bus/subway. This is just my observations as a pedestrian.

If you're not in the car, how can you possibly know whether it's Uber or not?

Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco

#115

Post by curried_haskell » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 2:25 AM UTC

Overtonwindow wrote: post #4

I really hope California isn't overreacting, possibly due to industry pressure from taxis etc. The state should be doing all it can to support, grow, and encourage this innovation.

Ah so that's what we're calling the wreckless endangerment of pedestrians these days... innovation!

Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco

#116

Post by bko » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 2:28 AM UTC

Spivak wrote: post #111

bko wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in light of projects where people can actually get killed. Compared to what? Most states give out licenses to 16 year old kids with a few hours of driving school. Once you get a license you never get retested for vision or driving ability. There are very dangerous elderly drivers on the road and car accidents are the leading cause of death of 1-44 year olds. Some allowable risk has to be accepted in order to have p…

I'm going to talk about my state's perspective because what you're saying sounds like madness. > 16 year old kids with a few hours of driving school The standard curriculum for 16 year old drivers is 12-16 hours of in class lecturing, 5 hours of in-car instruction with a licensed professional, a minimum of 50 hours of in-car instruction from a guardian or family member, a nuanced written test, and an hour in-car exam…

That's a lot of regulations. I would think that teenage drivers are very safe.

> In 2014, 2,270 teens in the United States ages 16–19 were killed and 221,313 were treated in emergency departments for injuries suffered in motor vehicle crashes. That means that six teens ages 16–19 died every day from motor vehicle injuries. In 2013, young people ages 15-19 represented only 7% of the U.S. population. However, they accounted for 11% ($10 billion) of the total costs of motor vehicle injuries. The risk of motor vehicle crashes is higher among 16-19-year-olds than among any other age group. In fact, per mile driven, teen drivers ages 16 to 19 are nearly three times more likely than drivers aged 20 and older to be in a fatal crash.

> Of the teens (aged 16-19) who died in passenger vehicle crashes in 2014 approximately 53% were not wearing a seat belt at the time of the crash.2 Research shows that seat belts reduce serious crash-related injuries and deaths by about half

Perhaps someone can pass a law mandating seatbelt use!

[0] https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/teen_drivers/teendriv...

Edit: it's also misleading that you suggest that the driver must have a minimum of 50 hours of driving experience. While technically true in NY State, all the applicant has to do is provide a completed Certification of Supervised Driving (MV-262) signed by your parent or guardian and that's only for teens under 18 year olds.

Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco

#117

Post by dmix » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 2:29 AM UTC

Animats wrote: post #113

dmix wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can think of a number of ways to collect this data without requiring a special permit. The police are in coordination with California, so incidences involving semi autonomous vehicles can be collected using existing systems. I'm also sure there are means to shutdown Uber's autonomous testing via court order. Additionally insurance and drivers licenses are already regulated. I'm still not convinced of the necessity.…

The data collection required for autonomous vehicles includes even very minor accidents. The idea is to collect data on what failed and why before somebody gets killed. Unlike regular accident data, all reports are public. This lets us see that Google's repeat problem is being rear-ended when their cars stop while entering an intersection because they detected cross-traffic. It also tells us that Cruise Automation hi…

So do you think the public wouldn't be able to inform themselves on which service or vehicle is safer before purchasing these cars without this data? Or that Google, Uber, Tesla, etc wouldn't already be taking these numbers very seriously and doing everything to minimize them? Or that the public wouldn't truly know the real safety of these vehicle as a whole vs human drivers.... without this mandatory test vehicle permit?

Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco

#118

Post by ceejayoz » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 2:35 AM UTC

bmm6o wrote: post #61

escoz wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CA law says every autonomous car in testing needs to have an operator in charge, so technically all incidents are due to human error. Also: Uber is not listed in the CA DMV list of companies allowed to test autonomous vehicles? https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/testi...

They seem to claim that it's assistive technology, not self-driving and therefore not required to register as autonomous: http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/12/uber-tests-self-driving-...

Yeah, well, they say they're not a taxi service, too.

Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco

#119

Post by ceejayoz » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 2:37 AM UTC

ClassyJacket wrote: post #114

jacobolus wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t have Uber installed on my phone. I mostly walk or take the bus/subway. This is just my observations as a pedestrian.

If you're not in the car, how can you possibly know whether it's Uber or not?

There's a sticker on every Uber, isn't there?

http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/article64550272.html

Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco

#120

Post by jodrellblank » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 2:40 AM UTC

unclebucknasty wrote: post #106

jgacook wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Uber self-driving cars have a human in the driver's seat that is able to take control of the vehicle. It's not clear whether the computer or the human was in control when the car blew the red light.

Some variation of that comment has been oft-repeated on this thread and it's exactly what Uber wants. One of the main functions of that human is to accept blame (or at least obfuscate culpability) and absolve the tech in the event of an accident. There are a ton of scenarios wherein it would be virtually impossible for a human--especially one lulled into inaction and passivity for most of the ride--would be able to i…

And you're absolving the legally responsible human, so you can blame the implied-Evil corporation, because... why?

Humans who are lulled into passivity by highway driving don't get to escape the blame if they crash because they couldn't respond quickly enough if the situation changes suddenly, regardless of 'tech failing'.

If you have SatNav and it says 'drive down here' and you do, and it's a one-way street, you don't say "that's exactly what Garmin want, a human to absolve them when their tech fails". Because the driver is in the position of responsibility, the tech is not.