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

211–220 of 459 posts

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

#211

Post by taneq »

noobermin wrote: post #173
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More like cue them into how dangerous walking out into traffic is. Cars don't stop on a dime. Everyone knows that. If there's ok visibility there's no excuse for getting hit by one that isn't going absurdly fast (assuming you don't use a circular definition for "absurdly fast") Sure, the car isn't supposed hit the pedestrian but the pedestrian also has an equal obligation not to just dart out into the road. And befor…

Agree with part of it but no, pedestrians do not have an equal obligation. With power should come responsibility. In America, we seem to do the opposite, disassociate responsibility with those in power and blame victims.

With power should come responsibility, sure, but "power" means "ability to affect the situation", not "joules per second." In the scenario of a pedestrian suddenly running out in front of a car which is driving at the speed limit, the pedestrian has far more power to affect the outcome (by choosing not to run into the path of the car) than the driver (who could not reasonably predict the pedestrian would behave in this manner).

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

#212

Post by geggam »

noobermin wrote: post #173
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More like cue them into how dangerous walking out into traffic is. Cars don't stop on a dime. Everyone knows that. If there's ok visibility there's no excuse for getting hit by one that isn't going absurdly fast (assuming you don't use a circular definition for "absurdly fast") Sure, the car isn't supposed hit the pedestrian but the pedestrian also has an equal obligation not to just dart out into the road. And befor…

Agree with part of it but no, pedestrians do not have an equal obligation. With power should come responsibility. In America, we seem to do the opposite, disassociate responsibility with those in power and blame victims.

Pedestrians have a higher personal responsibility since they have a higher risk. Common sense dictates this.

When you cross the road you know there is a risk. Driving down the road you dont typically have a huge risk.

Especially when its legal to drive down the road and illegal to cross the road outside the crosswalks.

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

#213

Post by rayiner »

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…

Where have you lived? Here in DC you regularly have to slow down because tourists and homeless people will blithely jump into the street. Same thing in Philadelphia or New York.

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

#214

Post by [deleted] »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #210
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…

How is Uber's experiment different than any other 20 companies working on same thing?

[deleted]

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

#215

Post by thedufer »

akira2501 wrote: post #190
CydeWeys wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> This is not true for any cohort.

I think it is, for a pretty reasonable slicing of the data. Here[1] you can find a table on pages 33-34 that contains cause of death by age cohort - the 15-24 group has only a single row that beats motor vehicle accidents, and it is "accidents", which motor vehicle accidents is considered a subset of.

I think part of the confusion from the table you linked to is that it doesn't contain motor vehicle deaths, and they are hidden in a weird way - in the 15-24 cohort, motor vehicle deaths are a substantial subset of all of the top 3 causes - unintentional injury, suicide, and homicide.

> By the way, the aviation insurance industry uses the per-journey statistic, not the per-mile.

That's perfectly reasonable for insurance purposes; a lot of the risk is concentrated in the takeoff and landing, so risk per journey is a more stable measure than risk per mile. But as a person who doesn't want to die, that's a nonsensical choice - I don't fly across the country because I wanted to take one journey; I fly across the country because I wanted to get somewhere that was 3000 miles away.

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

#216

Post by btrettel »

Are there plans for a beacon one could place on themself to make self driving cars recognize them better? Could be a light, a radio, or something else.

Perhaps there's a slippery slope before such things are required by law, but I am interested.

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

#217

Post by portofcall »

divbit wrote: post #204
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…

With the level of tech commonly posted on this website (and in general), there seem to be many suprising dangers that the average lurker is not going to know about that the experienced developer / whatever will know about. It seems better to seek out and point out (if non-obvious): 'be careful about x,y,z' rather than hide such warnings in obscure blog posts / hope people will understand some kind of implicit message…

Did you reply to the correct post? This seems unconnected to the topic at hand in the extreme, but maybe I’m missing something.

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

#218

Post by to3m »

taneq wrote: post #211
noobermin wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree with part of it but no, pedestrians do not have an equal obligation. With power should come responsibility. In America, we seem to do the opposite, disassociate responsibility with those in power and blame victims.

With power should come responsibility, sure, but "power" means "ability to affect the situation", not "joules per second." In the scenario of a pedestrian suddenly running out in front of a car which is driving at the speed limit, the pedestrian has far more power to affect the outcome (by choosing not to run into the path of the car) than the driver (who could not reasonably predict the pedestrian would behave in th…

Right, but since the driver has seen there's somebody on foot on the pavement, how come they haven't slowed down already? Perhaps the person could trip and fall into the road. Perhaps the person could have a fit and fall into the road. Perhaps the person is just crazy and is contemplating leaping into the road. Perhaps the person is drunk, hasn't seen you, and just fancies crossing the road there and then. It really doesn't matter. These are not capital offences.

What if that person were your son, daughter, wife, husband, parent, or whatever? Would you be so blasé over their losing their life, and all because somebody couldn't even be bothered to just move their foot a bit and press a pedal?

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

#219

Post by noobermin »

geggam wrote: post #212
noobermin wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree with part of it but no, pedestrians do not have an equal obligation. With power should come responsibility. In America, we seem to do the opposite, disassociate responsibility with those in power and blame victims.

Pedestrians have a higher personal responsibility since they have a higher risk. Common sense dictates this. When you cross the road you know there is a risk. Driving down the road you dont typically have a huge risk. Especially when its legal to drive down the road and illegal to cross the road outside the crosswalks.

I think you should take a step back and think about what you're saying.

A car can kill people. A car can create a large amount of property damage if it is driven carelessly. Cars can even, in extreme circumstances, be fire and chemical hazards.

Are you really sure driving doesn't include a massive amount of risk to yourself and others compared to walking period?

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

#220

Post by prawn »

Pushing a bicycle laden with plastic shopping bags, a woman abruptly walked from a center median into a lane of traffic and was struck by a self-driving Uber operating in autonomous mode.

From viewing the videos, “it’s very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode (autonomous or human-driven) based on how she came from the shadows right into the roadway,” Moir said.

The "driver" (more like attendant) had no warning until the sound of impact. The vehicle was doing 38 in a 35 zone which I would've thought was odd - would the vehicles be programmed to push the limit a little as most other drivers often do?

Edit: Ignore last comment. Some have suggested the limit was actually 45 mph per signage.

Post reply on HN