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

Cruise is running an autonomous ride hailing service for employees in SF

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 183 posts

Re: Cruise is running an autonomous ride hailing service for employees in SF

#171

Post by drawnwren »

JshWright wrote: post #149
drawnwren wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I don't know if you're in SF - but on the one lane roads, traffic doesn't stop for people turning left at lights. Again, I don't know the legality - but I've seen police and government workers do it as well. Because the streets are made w/ enough space for vehicles to park next to the lanes of traffic - there is enough room to pass on the right in an intersection.

Passing on the shoulder (over a white line), or in a designated parking lane is indeed a violation (obviously I'm not sure of the specifics of the intersection, so I don't know if either of those apply).

Neither of these apply.

Re: Cruise is running an autonomous ride hailing service for employees in SF

#172

Post by vkou »

kelnos wrote: post #162
vkou wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Human drivers are pretty terrible. I beg to differ. The average sober human driver has 1 fatal accident in 120-300 million miles traveled, depending on where they live in North America. Given that we are bags of meat and water, have reaction times measured in hundreds of milliseconds, were never designed to operate heavy machinery, and manage to achieve all that on a mere 100 watts, that's pretty amazing.

Where are you getting that data? [1] claims that the rate was 1.27 deaths per billion miles in 2008, and 1.25 in 2016. What do you consider the threshold for human drivers being good or bad? Even if we could get to 1 death per billion miles (with human drivers), I'd consider that pretty bad. Regardless, if an autonomous driving system can do better, that's all that really matters. We're not there yet, but it's not in…

The death rate varies widely from region to region. The article you linked cites Ontario, with its 3 deaths/1 billion miles. Denmark has 1 death/1 billion miles. South Carolina is a graveyard, with 12 deaths/1 billion miles.

Also, ~40% of driving deaths (Again, with significant regional variation) are due to alcohol use.

I'd consider 1 death per billion miles pretty good. That's one fatal mistake in 25 million hours of driving. That's a lot of hours.

> Regardless, if an autonomous driving system can do better, that's all that really matters. We're not there yet, but it's not inconceivable that we could be before too long.

Agreed.

Re: Cruise is running an autonomous ride hailing service for employees in SF

#173

Post by JshWright »

drawnwren wrote: post #170
mtourne wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that part. But not the one about the cruise car almost hitting you. So: one lane street, person in front of you turning left, you pass them to the right in the space where there might be street parking which extends into the intersection. During that time, the car trying to turn left is finally able to do so and the car immediately behind it is the cruise car. Cruise-car is now able to go straight and al…

Nope, cruise car was in the other lane turning left. It turned into my lane just after I passed the car turning left and the cruise car made a sudden stop in the wrong (my) lane. Had it continued, it would've collided with my rear wheel - so I'm like 75% sure I wouldn't have been at fault.

So, by the sounds of things, everything worked as designed. In many similar situations with a human behind the wheel, that would have been a collision.

Based on personal experience (as a firefighter/paramedic), I wouldn't be surprised if a not-insignificant percentage of collisions (both car/car and car/bike) in SF are caused by that very scenario.

Personally, that sounds like an anecdote very much in favor of automated cars.

Re: Cruise is running an autonomous ride hailing service for employees in SF

#174

Post by denvercoder904 »

hobls wrote: post #150
denvercoder904 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, I applied on the website. I have a solid background in embedded systems and C++ but I immediately received a rejection email. I wish I could have chatted with an engineer first :-(

Sounds like there was some disqualifying factor you're not aware of. (Citizenship, willingness to relocate, whatever.) No one sends out immediate rejection emails to experienced engineers unless they really have to.

I was open to all those things.

Re: Cruise is running an autonomous ride hailing service for employees in SF

#175

Post by hobls »

denvercoder904 wrote: post #174
hobls wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like there was some disqualifying factor you're not aware of. (Citizenship, willingness to relocate, whatever.) No one sends out immediate rejection emails to experienced engineers unless they really have to.

I was open to all those things.

Just giving examples; I have no idea what the actual reason was. My overall point is that you shouldn't take it as an indication for your engineering ability; an instant rejection means that wasn't the thing.

Re: Cruise is running an autonomous ride hailing service for employees in SF

#176

Post by abalone »

Retric wrote: post #168
abalone wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're correct. The question is what is the cost passed on to consumers. If it is something on the order of the cost of medical malpractice insurance and average settlements, well, wow. That would make AV prohibitively expensive. More likely the bar for level 4 will just be significantly higher than parity with human error, if only for liability reasons.

"In 2010, there were 1.1 fatal crashes per 100 million truck miles" https://www.truckdrivingjobs.com/faq/truck-driving-accidents... Truckers make ~27c/mile. So, at similar rate to human drivers that's ~24* million dollars per fatal crash in saved wages. Plus presumably higher truck utilization and lower management costs etc. Don't forget the driver is often not at fault and automated trucks should have plenty of foot…

> if the self drive button cost ~25c / mile there are plenty of times I would hit it

25c/mile just for the insurance surcharge, you mean? Sounds like we're in agreement that mere parity with human error would be expensive from a liability perspective.

Re: Cruise is running an autonomous ride hailing service for employees in SF

#177

Post by mikestew »

adrianmacneil wrote: post #100

Hi HN, engineer at Cruise here. I just wanted to point out that most people are surprised when I tell them we're hiring a ton of backend/full stack/android engineering positions (mostly go/node/react), and you don't need prior robotics or machine learning experience to apply (although we like those too). So, if you're interested in working on AVs or the systems that support them, please take a look at our careers pag…

Hopefully that scrolling on mobile will get fixed soon, as I can't scroll the job descriptions. It scrolls the header bar instead. IOS 10, Safari, iPhone 6S, content blockers unloaded.

Pity, too, as I would think there'd be some interest in a previously ASE-certified mechanic with a lot of software experience.

Re: Cruise is running an autonomous ride hailing service for employees in SF

#178

Post by inferiorhuman »

ghaff wrote: post #154
inferiorhuman wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their cars have trouble with left turns as well. I was walking to Rainbow a few weeks ago and heard a bunch of honking. Turns out the car wouldn't make a left on a green light (Folsom at 13th). Fast forward a few days and the same thing happened, this time at Mission and 18th. Only at this intersection there's a no left turn restriction and the driver overrode it and made the left. If one of Cruise's autonomous cars…

Left hand turns are one of the tricky things (as experts like John Leonard have also pointed out). The appropriate behavior is VERY context-dependent. Ordinary prudent and conservative behavior in some circumstances is you're-never-going-to-make-a-turn and you'll cause road rage in other drivers under other circumstances.

Sure, the first time the driver intervened there was no oncoming traffic. The second time there was traffic and a "no left turn" sign.

Re: Cruise is running an autonomous ride hailing service for employees in SF

#179

Post by Retric »

abalone wrote: post #176
Retric wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In 2010, there were 1.1 fatal crashes per 100 million truck miles" https://www.truckdrivingjobs.com/faq/truck-driving-accidents... Truckers make ~27c/mile. So, at similar rate to human drivers that's ~24* million dollars per fatal crash in saved wages. Plus presumably higher truck utilization and lower management costs etc. Don't forget the driver is often not at fault and automated trucks should have plenty of foot…

> if the self drive button cost ~25c / mile there are plenty of times I would hit it 25c/mile just for the insurance surcharge, you mean? Sounds like we're in agreement that mere parity with human error would be expensive from a liability perspective.

I don't think the average fatal accident is going to average even 5 million, I am just saying if it cost 20 million that's still not a deal killer. Put in other terms Valet Parking is 5+$, but 'go park' is ~5 cents. In ~15MPG city / stop and go traffic that's 3.75$/hour to not pay attention.

Hell go to sleep and wake up in another city 500-1000 miles away without going to the airport or needing a rental is a major benefit even if your not saying money.

Re: Cruise is running an autonomous ride hailing service for employees in SF

#180

Post by drawnwren »

JshWright wrote: post #173
drawnwren wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, cruise car was in the other lane turning left. It turned into my lane just after I passed the car turning left and the cruise car made a sudden stop in the wrong (my) lane. Had it continued, it would've collided with my rear wheel - so I'm like 75% sure I wouldn't have been at fault.

So, by the sounds of things, everything worked as designed. In many similar situations with a human behind the wheel, that would have been a collision. Based on personal experience (as a firefighter/paramedic), I wouldn't be surprised if a not-insignificant percentage of collisions (both car/car and car/bike) in SF are caused by that very scenario. Personally, that sounds like an anecdote very much in favor of automa…

You're completely off base here. I'd say I do this 10-15 times a day. So ~100 times a week, and there is never an issue. I am infrequently the first car to do it. I put it in quotes because it is a very common practice in SF. You would have to wait through every light twice to get anywhere in the Mission if you didn't do this. It's mostly single lane with no turn light. I noted that it was odd because I very rarely have problems doing this.
Post reply on HN