Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 249 posts

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

#161

Post by harlanlewis »

notyourwork wrote: post #127
surfmike wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't you want to give a bad rating for bad driving? I almost always give 5 stars, but with the notable exception being distracted or aggressive drivers.

I don't want to criticize you in particular but I have a problem with "always give 5 stars". Are you telling me that your average Uber ride is 100% perfect? I find that hard to believe, moreover basic distributions would find this improbable. Sorry for ranting, I wish more people would give realistic ratings to things instead of starting with 100% perfect and decrementing for misses. It should start in the middle, 50…

I agree with you that ratings should mean something. However, Uber requires an absolute minimum score of 3.8 for drivers to stay on the platform, and a 4.6 minimum for any area that has reasonable driver supply (eg: everywhere). This means every time you rate a driver a 4 it's effectively a statement that they should be fired.

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

#162

Post by unclebucknasty »

jodrellblank wrote: post #120
unclebucknasty wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>so you can blame the implied-Evil corporation, because... why?

Because the "implied-Evil corporation" offers technology which claims to be capable of doing something, entreats you to confer upon it some degree of trust, then holds you responsible when it fails. Because lives can be lost as a result of such failures and the company's stance represents a cynical and cavalier regard for this fact. Because, they want the cachet (and the cash) without the responsibility.

>Humans who are lulled into passivity by highway driving

That analogy isn't even close to holding. In that case, you are understood to be in control of the vehicle. In fact, you are actively giving minor corrective inputs at all times. It's nowhere near the same as the car saying, "here, let me do that for you", but, you are supposed to sit at the ready, hands hovering slightly over the wheel and foot over the brake, ever scanning and ready to take over? That's asinine, and it's a flawed model. At a minimum, your reaction time will be slowed as you must first recognize that the car is not responding properly in, perhaps, a split second when it suddenly does something unexpected.

Look, it's simple: the car needs to either be fully ready and safe, or it's not. This have-it-both-ways Tesla-invented PR spin that says "our tech is statistically safer, but it's your fault for not correcting it even if it does screw up" is a pernicious subterfuge and I personally don't like how it defines our relationship with technology.

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

#163

Post by stickfigure »

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%…

these cars running red lights

I watched quite the opposite problem the other day. Uber self-driving car pulled up to a red light on a busy intersection, in the left turn lane. The light turned green. I could tell that the car was in self-driving mode because it didn't step into the intersection like humans would do - not even slightly. The opposing traffic never let up enough to make a left turn, so the car stayed put, even through the yellow. Poor thing skipped a complete green light cycle. I think I heard a horn from some of the drivers backed up behind it.

Self-driving cars might be a little too polite.

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

#164

Post by linkregister »

automatwon wrote: post #132
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%…

Uber seems like they were extremely reckless YES. I live 10 feet away from the garage. I've noticed over the past few months that they've been ramping in typical startup fashion: hockey stick growth. After reading about Lyft's CEO, a narrative of "nice guys finishing last", I started realizing how unscrupulous Uber is. Sadly, cut-throat businesses win. I recently took an Uber ride, where the driver was an un-retired…

Agreed, I think that driving only makes sense as a minimum wage job.

The notion that Lyft is significantly better is untrue. Lyft actually created the "ride sharing" portion of both apps (UberX emulated Lyft's model). Lyft didn't get regulatory approval either. Both have been ejected from Austin and other cities.

I think the unit economics work out, but perhaps not to the level their current valuation suggests. I think Lyft could have been successful if it had not been outspent/out-VC-raised by Uber. Lyft was the original innovator of the true ride sharing segment. Uber at the time was a broker/dispatcher for commercial limousines.

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

#165

Post by ww520 »

jacobolus wrote: post #38
scarmig wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it learned a bit too much from San Francisco drivers?

If it uses Uber drivers for training, heaven help us: I’ve seen illegal U-turns, constant double parking, reversing down 1-way streets, moving right turns through red lights, sudden stops, speeding 25+ mph over the legal limit, lane changes in intersections, lots of turning without signals, lack of proper yielding to obvious pedestrians, cyclists nearly side-swiped, etc. (Some subset of) Uber drivers are one of the w…

All others are bad, though right turn on red light is legal after stop.

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

#166

Post by notyourwork »

harlanlewis wrote: post #161
notyourwork wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to criticize you in particular but I have a problem with "always give 5 stars". Are you telling me that your average Uber ride is 100% perfect? I find that hard to believe, moreover basic distributions would find this improbable. Sorry for ranting, I wish more people would give realistic ratings to things instead of starting with 100% perfect and decrementing for misses. It should start in the middle, 50…

I agree with you that ratings should mean something. However, Uber requires an absolute minimum score of 3.8 for drivers to stay on the platform, and a 4.6 minimum for any area that has reasonable driver supply (eg: everywhere). This means every time you rate a driver a 4 it's effectively a statement that they should be fired.

Whether Uber or any other company does this doesn't change my premise. Uber is just like others further baking the problem and encouraging people to treat 100% as the status quo which means we have nothing to look forward to. I enjoy being pleasantly surprised when service is above average.

Its the same problem with the game industry has with reviews. If I were to market a game as "so and so" gave it 7/10 no one would care but if I say 9/10, 9.9/10 or better yet 10/10 than we have a marketing headline.

I wish more people would understand this.

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

#167

Post by dap »

MichaelBurge wrote: post #144
kinkdr wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why not apply for a permit and stay on the safe side? When did Uber obey the law? Why would they start now? Edit: Apologies for my tone, but Uber has demonstrated quite a few times in the past that they don't have any respect for the law.

> When did Uber obey the law? In absolute numbers, their company probably follows more laws than most people on this forum, since they operate in many different jurisdictions. It wouldn't surprise me if the average HN commenter committed more felonies than the average Uber executive, or of Uber as a whole.

It doesn't matter how many laws you follow. It matters how many you break.

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

#168

Post by notyourwork »

kevingadd wrote: post #157
notyourwork wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to criticize you in particular but I have a problem with "always give 5 stars". Are you telling me that your average Uber ride is 100% perfect? I find that hard to believe, moreover basic distributions would find this improbable. Sorry for ranting, I wish more people would give realistic ratings to things instead of starting with 100% perfect and decrementing for misses. It should start in the middle, 50…

If a driver's average rating drops below around 4.5 they get kicked off. By design you can't give a driver less than 5 unless you want them to lose their job.

Why do you phrase this in a way that implies that is my problem? That is a mechanism Uber created because of the problem I originally called out.

If we didn't have this rating problem, 4.5 threshold would probably be much closer to the 50%.

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

#169

Post by euyyn »

stickfigure wrote: post #163
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%…

these cars running red lights I watched quite the opposite problem the other day. Uber self-driving car pulled up to a red light on a busy intersection, in the left turn lane. The light turned green. I could tell that the car was in self-driving mode because it didn't step into the intersection like humans would do - not even slightly. The opposing traffic never let up enough to make a left turn, so the car stayed pu…

Imagine the poor Google koala car in the streets around Union Square...

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

#170

Post by Hydraulix989 »

MichaelBurge wrote: post #144
kinkdr wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why not apply for a permit and stay on the safe side? When did Uber obey the law? Why would they start now? Edit: Apologies for my tone, but Uber has demonstrated quite a few times in the past that they don't have any respect for the law.

> When did Uber obey the law? In absolute numbers, their company probably follows more laws than most people on this forum, since they operate in many different jurisdictions. It wouldn't surprise me if the average HN commenter committed more felonies than the average Uber executive, or of Uber as a whole.

That is such an apples to oranges comparison.
Post reply on HN