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

Police Say Uber Is Likely Not at Fault for Self-Driving Car Fatality in Arizona

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 459 posts

Re: Police Say Uber Is Likely Not at Fault for Self-Driving Car Fatality in Arizona

#71

Post by jcranmer »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #64
benwilber0 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is speeding and also the car was inattentive to potential hazards outside of its vision. Normal human drivers slow down when they see a wild lady on the median looking like she might dart into the road. Normal people slow down when there are kids playing with a ball on the sidewalk. Do these cars do that? Do they even drive the speed limit? edit: Also accidentally killing someone with your car because of minor s…

If I'm imagining this scenario correctly, I've experienced it tons of times and never seen traffic slow down. It's a road with a median and a person attempting to cross the road has temporarily stopped in the median waiting for a break in traffic so they can cross. Maybe I've just lived in 2 crazy states, or maybe I'm not imagining this scenario correctly, but I can't recall ever having seen traffic slow down for thi…

Traffic might not slow down, but I'd definitely keep an eye out for the person in the median.

Re: Police Say Uber Is Likely Not at Fault for Self-Driving Car Fatality in Arizona

#72

Post by trothamel »

When it comes to traffic, there's the concept of the right-of-way. I don't know about the rules in Tempe, but here's an excerpt from the rules in New York.

> (a) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway.

And that kind of makes sense, because if pedestrians were able to cross wherever they chose, it would become difficulty for vehicles to move down a road with a stable velocity. (Increasing emissions, etc.)

Re: Police Say Uber Is Likely Not at Fault for Self-Driving Car Fatality in Arizona

#73

Post by m3kw9 »

blakesterz wrote: post #13

> “The driver said it was like a flash, the person walked out in front of them,” Moir said. “His first alert to the collision was the sound of the collision.” I don't know if that is supposed to make anyone feel better about this, if anything it makes it seem worse. I thought one of the big benefits of these systems was they were supposed to be better at exactly these kinds of situations? More like "autonomous cars a…

is pretty hard to beat human drivers in the danger category. But ok let’s play this out a little longer before you start dismissing it

Re: Police Say Uber Is Likely Not at Fault for Self-Driving Car Fatality in Arizona

#74

Post by dllthomas »

swang wrote: post #43

okay i haven't been following this deeply, but the person hit was a cyclist right? not a pedestrian. if so. how does a self-driving car not identify a bicyclist? how does a bike come out from the shadows and "surprise" a self-driving car?

There's been conflicting reporting, but from what I've seen it was a person walking a bike.

Re: Police Say Uber Is Likely Not at Fault for Self-Driving Car Fatality in Arizona

#76

Post by trothamel »

akamaka wrote: post #45

I don’t think that the opinion of the police is at all relevant here, since they have no tools for investigating how self-driving cars react in accidents. The sensors and reaction time of a self-driving car are entirely different from a human, so it’s possible that a crash for which a human is not at fault could be averted by properly programmed self-driving car software.

Can't the police fairly easily determine who had the right of way? Given how simple the rule is, it seems like one of the first things a police officer would have done.

Re: Police Say Uber Is Likely Not at Fault for Self-Driving Car Fatality in Arizona

#77

Post by shkkmo »

swang wrote: post #43

okay i haven't been following this deeply, but the person hit was a cyclist right? not a pedestrian. if so. how does a self-driving car not identify a bicyclist? how does a bike come out from the shadows and "surprise" a self-driving car?

From the article: "Herzberg is said to have abruptly walked from a center median into a lane with traffic."

Re: Police Say Uber Is Likely Not at Fault for Self-Driving Car Fatality in Arizona

#78

Post by drewg123 »

danso wrote: post #52

> According to the Chronicle, the preliminary investigation found the Uber car was driving at 38 mph in a 35 mph zone and did not attempt to brake. Herzberg is said to have abruptly walked from a center median into a lane with traffic. Police believe she may have been homeless. I know this isn't the most pertinent issue here, but I'm surprised the self-driving AI is allowed to speed , though with further research, th…

Not speeding would cause it to impede traffic flow. Speed limits are often set for revenue generation, not safety.

Re: Police Say Uber Is Likely Not at Fault for Self-Driving Car Fatality in Arizona

#79

Post by goshx »

cloakandswagger wrote: post #58
akamaka wrote: post #45

I don’t think that the opinion of the police is at all relevant here, since they have no tools for investigating how self-driving cars react in accidents. The sensors and reaction time of a self-driving car are entirely different from a human, so it’s possible that a crash for which a human is not at fault could be averted by properly programmed self-driving car software.

You don't think the opinion of the police is relevant in a homicide? The opinion of people who have investigated hundreds if not thousands of similar accidents? Who meets your criteria for expertise on saying whether the car could have stopped or not? Uber?

If there is data to be reviewed, that’s your best bet against someone who was not even there.

Re: Police Say Uber Is Likely Not at Fault for Self-Driving Car Fatality in Arizona

#80

Post by cloakandswagger »

tathougies wrote: post #55
friedman23 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3mph above the speed limit

But you see, this is a computerized car. Whereas for a human, there is gauge observation error, there’s really no excuse for a machine, especially a machine who has our lives in its hands

Not long ago I seem to remember people listing the lightning fast speed at which an automated car could drive as just one of the many blessings the technology would gift to us. Now we want them to drive the speed limit? Boring.
Post reply on HN