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

181–190 of 459 posts

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

#181

Post by ams6110 »

omarforgotpwd wrote: post #114
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…

Of course a self driving car should be able to speed. My understanding is that speed limits are set by measuring the speed people are driving on the road and then determining a speed at which roughly 15% of the drivers are exceeding that limit. There is an expectation that people will speed, but by setting the speed limit a little bit lower almost all traffic will fall under safe bounds. Driving 38 in a 35 zone is co…

They should not be able to speed arbitrarily, but it seems sensible that they would match the prevailing traffic speed.

One car carefully observing a 30mph limit creates a hazard when everyone else is going 35-40.

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

#182

Post by danso »

corny wrote: post #176
danso wrote: post #94

FWIW, this seems to be where the accident took place, based on news photos: https://www.google.com/maps/place/N+Mill+Ave+%26+E+Curry+Rd,... It's not completely unlighted, though I'm not sure that's supposed to matter given the AV's sensors? Even if Uber nor the human driver is not legally at fault, I'd still be interested in knowing of Uber's LIDAR and other sensors even detected the woman, and whether it's part of t…

There's a paved area in the median that seems pretty useless since there's no sidewalk or crosswalk that connects to the median at that point: https://goo.gl/maps/9WKX2DYEN862 If the Uber car was about to turn left at the upcoming intersection it might have been getting into the leftmost turning lane at the point of impact. The pedestrian would have been obscured by a slight curve in the road, vegetation, a road sign…

Yeah, I saw that too. It's such a weird construct since, as you say, there is no legal way for someone to follow the median paths and cross either of the streets. In fact, how are pedestrians supposed to get on the median in the first place (legally, I mean)?

From the New Times:

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/medical-cannabis-extract...

> That spot is east of the second, western-side Mill Avenue bridge that is restricted to southbound traffic, and east of the Marquee Theatre and a parking lot for the Tempe Town Lake. It can be a popular area for pedestrians, especially concertgoers, joggers, and lake visitors. Mid-street crossing is common there, and a walkway in the median between the two one-way roads across the two bridges probably encourages the practice.

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

#183

Post by noobermin »

akira2501 wrote: post #148
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…

> Perhaps it will finally cue people in to how intrinsically dangerous cars are. Until you consider the _billions_ of miles that cars in the US drive every month. Cars are exceptionally safe, and they're getting better every year.. because we keep driving _more_ miles year after year, yet fatalities continue to drop. Also, how do you interpret facts like: California has 30% more people living in it than Texas, yet TX…

The problem with the "billions of miles" metric, I have nothing to compare it to. If you compare it to safe of trains or buses (at least in countries that properly fund their public transport), how does it compare?

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

#184

Post by Lunatic666 »

ams6110 wrote: post #174
portofcall wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Agree. And I'd like to see an approach similar to an NTSB investigation of an air crash. Not to place blame, but to identify root causes and mitigate the chance that they recur. Air travel is exceptionally safe. Has been for many decades. Yet we…

Responsible and ethical are usually not words which are used together with Uber, but in this case it seems like it was simply an accident. Computers cannot beat Physics, if the woman suddenly stepped in front of a car which is unable to brake, it’s a tragic accident.

The idea of the investigations compared to air-travel is pretty good and also much easier to execute given they record everything on camera.

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

#185

Post by megy »

goshx wrote: post #144
portofcall wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt the police had the records from the car’s system. With all due respect, then why are they using their bully pulpit to blame this woman for her death at this early stage? The vehicle made no attempt to stop, which seems worrying if the sensors and algorithms were working as intended, so maybe it would be worth looking at those systems.

How does the police determine that a vehicle "made no attempt to stop" today, without video and sensor data?

The same way they do it now??

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

#186

Post by stubish »

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.

It's region specific. In many regions, yes, it is speeding, and ticketable, sometimes automatically by speed cameras. I have no idea what is normal in this particular region.

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

#187

Post by tzs »

stefan_ wrote: post #113
CydeWeys wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I wasn't saying that in jest or exaggerating for dramatic effect. It's simply reality that today, unless you are drunk or high, you can kill someone who is walking in a crosswalk with your vehicle and get away with not even a ticket: https://twitter.com/KeeganNYC/status/530515713405231105 Afterwards, police will, as in this case, make up a story how "the little kid broke free from its grandma" and decline to charge.

According to the news reports on the case that tweet is about, the police in fact ticketed the driver. A judge dismissed the tickets later, against the recommendation of the police.

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

#188

Post by empressplay »

cjensen wrote: post #159
mrhappyunhappy wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was mention of her walking her bike.

Which means she wasn't moving quickly.

"walking your bike" is just an expression, you can certainly run while "walking" your bike – especially across a street

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

#189

Post by stevenwoo »

goshx wrote: post #144
portofcall wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt the police had the records from the car’s system. With all due respect, then why are they using their bully pulpit to blame this woman for her death at this early stage? The vehicle made no attempt to stop, which seems worrying if the sensors and algorithms were working as intended, so maybe it would be worth looking at those systems.

How does the police determine that a vehicle "made no attempt to stop" today, without video and sensor data?

They might have meant skid marks indicating an emergency stop though with the prevalence of ABS that is no longer a surefire sign.

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

#190

Post by akira2501 »

CydeWeys wrote: post #166
akira2501 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Perhaps it will finally cue people in to how intrinsically dangerous cars are. Until you consider the _billions_ of miles that cars in the US drive every month. Cars are exceptionally safe, and they're getting better every year.. because we keep driving _more_ miles year after year, yet fatalities continue to drop. Also, how do you interpret facts like: California has 30% more people living in it than Texas, yet TX…

Cars are not anything close to exceptionally safe. Indeed, they are the exact opposite: They are the most dangeorus thing that most people encounter on a daily basis. There are many age and other cohorts of the population for which the leading cause of death is vehicles. And compare against commercial aviation, which has a per-mile death rate three orders of magnitude less than driving.

> They are the most dangeorus thing that most people encounter on a daily basis.

It's actually yourself, and it's worse when you're at work. Deaths due to vehicles: 36k per year. Deaths due to suicides: 44k per year. Deaths due to accidents: 190k per year.

> There are many age and other cohorts of the population for which the leading cause of death is vehicles.

This is not true for any cohort. [1] And yes, I'm aware that accidental deaths include vehicular deaths, but if you dig into the FARS data [2] and do a comparison between the two sets, you'll see that this statement can't be correct.

It is; however, true that young men 15-24 exhibit the highest risk rate in vehicles compared to anyone else.. it's even 8x higher than females of the same age, but it doesn't make vehicles the greatest risk they face.

> And compare against commercial aviation, which has a per-mile death rate three orders of magnitude less than driving.

Yea, but a "deaths-per-journey" that's three times worse [3]. By the way, the aviation insurance industry uses the per-journey statistic, not the per-mile. Which further reveals my point, I don't think you can't take a single axis view on this information and come to any meaningful conclusion.

[1]: https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_dea...

[2]: https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#Transport_comp...

Post reply on HN