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

101–110 of 459 posts

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

#101

Post by danso »

dexterdog wrote: post #56
portofcall wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet the speeding vehicle didn’t even attempt to stop. https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/19/17140936/uber-self-drivin...

Can we please stop calling 38 in a 35 speeding? In many places that speed would be inpeding traffic.

Uh, but it is speeding. I can't be the only person who's gone through a town that happens to have a zealous patrol officer who brings in huge revenues for the town (seems to be common around college towns). Exceptions are generally made when it comes to maintaining flow of traffic, but it seems like the Uber vehicle was by itself?

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

#102

Post by rboyd »

rdiddly wrote: post #37

Just to continue my line of unpopular opinions about this: whoever chooses to put a car on the road instead of traveling in a way that hurts others less (walking, transit, bike), is responsible at least in part for any damage, injury or death, just by being there. How many people die by wandering out in front of somebody else walking along? Nobody even has to call a cop, much less determine whose fault it was, becaus…

sent from your mobile phone, made possible by an 8 year old slave working in the cobalt mines.

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

#103

Post by IncRnd »

trothamel wrote: post #72

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…

Legally, the driver may not have been at fault. Even so, I was taught as a child learning to drive that when I see a person in the median, watch them. They may walk out in front of you. They might even fall into the road.

So, be prepared maybe even by changing lanes before that point in order to get out of harm's way. Apparently, this driver wasn't watching, choosing to let the car drive itself.

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

#104

Post by mbreese »

GhostVII wrote: post #70
tathougies wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But, in the US at least, the speed of traffic will be much faster than the speed limit, so driving the limit is unsafe.

Driving 38 vs 35 is hardly an unsafe difference...

These are machines. They should obey the speed limit.

For people learning to drive -- the first step is learning how to obey the rules. The second step is learning which rules can be bent. Let's focus on step one at the moment.

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

#105

Post by oxymoran »

rdiddly wrote: post #37

Just to continue my line of unpopular opinions about this: whoever chooses to put a car on the road instead of traveling in a way that hurts others less (walking, transit, bike), is responsible at least in part for any damage, injury or death, just by being there. How many people die by wandering out in front of somebody else walking along? Nobody even has to call a cop, much less determine whose fault it was, becaus…

This is called comparative negligence. The theory being that there really is no such thing as an “accident” and that generally all parties involved share some negligence in causality. Obviously there are still freak occurrences. Courts adjust damages based on this all the time.

People slip and fall and hold business liable all the time.

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

#106

Post by Alex3917 »

CydeWeys wrote: post #50
stefan_ wrote: post #10

This is just police standard operating procedure. In any kind of manslaughter where a vehicle is involved, save on paperwork and blame whichever party ended up dead before the driver has even spoken the words "she came from nowhere". Here is the police chief spelling it out for Uber: she came from the shadows I wonder what that LIDAR thinks about the shadows . I mean, this system is in place because everybody drives…

You aren't kidding about it being standard operating procedure. Almost every time a pedestrian or cyclist is killed in New York City, the police come out and blame anyone but the driver. And then video will turn up afterwards showing that the driver was driving unsafely, and that the fatal accident could have been avoided. Still, no charges are filed. It's like they have an allergy to paperwork. I want to see video o…

The difference is that in NYC the cops can get away with that just by taking the surveillance tapes from the local businesses and then destroying them. In this case presumably they know the video will eventually come out.

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

#108

Post by portofcall »

maxander wrote: post #85

There's going to be a bunch of these "OMG a robot car hit someone!!!" stories that then morph into "the robot actually had nothing to do with it." Perhaps it will finally cue people in to how intrinsically dangerous cars are. I mean, even if autonomous cars are x100 times safer to be around than human-driven cars, they're still orders of magnitude more of a risk factor for ordinary (U.S.) citizens than say, terrorist…

Given just how poorly we react to terrorism and sharks, I’m not sure if that’s the direction I’d want to be headed in. I’m in favor of automation, but not with Uber’s “move fast and break things” attitude. Responsible, ethical, and careful developments of dangerous technology, even if the danger promises to be reduced compared to the norm in some future iteration, is a must.

Keep in mind that some version of “killled by robots” has been in the zeitgeist of fear for decades now. In that sense, “sharks amd terrorists” might not be a bad comparison. It will not take much to ruin a good thing (automation) with typically scummy practices. The important thing to remember is that automation doesn’t require the likes of Uber playing fast and loose with it to become a reality.

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

#109

Post by Mtinie »

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?

No, the woman hit by the car was a pedestrian, not a cyclist.

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

#110

Post by jcranmer »

I've been trying to find video evidence of the crash, and have been unable to do so. The closest I've found is a myriad of news reports showing the stopped car and police scene.

On reviewing this evidence however, there is one thing that sticks out: the damage to the car appears to be entirely on the passenger side. If the woman "darted out from the median," then she managed to clear at least half of the traffic lane before being struck. That makes it more likely that certain prompt evasive actions could have prevented the fatality, which does not look good on Uber's part.

I, for one, am glad that NTSB is looking at the crash.

Post reply on HN