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

331–340 of 459 posts

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

#331

Post by carlmr »

trothamel wrote: post #76
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.

Right of way doesn't absolve you of fault. If you have the right of way, but a pedestrian goes on the street anyway, you have the duty to stop/slow down to the best of what's possible.

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

#332

Post by firelemissiles »

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…

This is really scary I think!

In Denmark it is standard procedure to immediately arrest the other party and charge with manslaughter if there has been a fatality in an accident, no matter who might have been at fault. This way the police can gather information quickly from the driver and release him shortly after. An in depth investigation is always carried out to precisely map out what happened (this can take weeks), and not before that will charges be dropped depending on the result.

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

#333

Post by QasimK »

ams6110 wrote: post #181
omarforgotpwd wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Of course everyone else going at 35-40 are a hazard themselves in the first place.

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

#334

Post by yread »

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…

> and their bicycle.

good point, could it be that the sensors failed to spot her because of the plastic bags on her bicycle?

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

#335

Post by ovi256 »

dingaling wrote: post #325
ShorsHammer wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why autonomous vehicles are so big. Virtually all travel is one person, ideally it would be a tiny 4 wheel electric with the sole passenger highly reclined. The hangover from internal combustion is real.

Even the original DARPA Grand Challenge in 2005 was won by a system installed on VW Taureg, an enormous two-tonne SUV.

They used a big SUV to get rough road capability, necessary for the Grand Challenge, and to have the space to rack all the equipment they needed. 13 years later, an Nvidia Jetson (a single board computer) has more computing power than their whole setup, and a medium drone can carry it.

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

#336

Post by nextlevelwizard »

ams6110 wrote: post #181
omarforgotpwd wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Going at speed limit NEVER creates a hazard. It is always the drivers going over or under it. I am not getting a speeding ticket for peer pressure. If you want to speed then you can pass me at your own risk.

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

#337

Post by [deleted] »

ShorsHammer wrote: post #314
r_klancer wrote: post #225

My takeaway from the comments in this thread: self-driving Ubers don't drive defensively, almost surely can't "read" pedestrian behavior, and even with lidar may never have seen Elaine Herzberg. Oh, and they speed. This sounds like straight out of the "hell" scenario for driverless cars: "we cannot accept responsibility for what happens to pedestrians and cyclists foolish enough to stray out of their designated safe…

I don't see why autonomous vehicles are so big. Virtually all travel is one person, ideally it would be a tiny 4 wheel electric with the sole passenger highly reclined. The hangover from internal combustion is real.

[deleted]

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

#338

Post by nikanj »

ShorsHammer wrote: post #314
r_klancer wrote: post #225

My takeaway from the comments in this thread: self-driving Ubers don't drive defensively, almost surely can't "read" pedestrian behavior, and even with lidar may never have seen Elaine Herzberg. Oh, and they speed. This sounds like straight out of the "hell" scenario for driverless cars: "we cannot accept responsibility for what happens to pedestrians and cyclists foolish enough to stray out of their designated safe…

I don't see why autonomous vehicles are so big. Virtually all travel is one person, ideally it would be a tiny 4 wheel electric with the sole passenger highly reclined. The hangover from internal combustion is real.

The same reason non-autonomous ones are so big. It's a status symbol, plus there's the arms race of "bigger truck wins in an accident"

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

#339

Post by cthalupa »

nextlevelwizard wrote: post #336
ams6110 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Going at speed limit NEVER creates a hazard. It is always the drivers going over or under it. I am not getting a speeding ticket for peer pressure. If you want to speed then you can pass me at your own risk.

>Going at speed limit NEVER creates a hazard. It is always the drivers going over or under it.

Please be in the right lane if you are going slower than the flow of traffic. Regardless of whether or not you feel the people speeding are ultimately at fault, if everyone is speeding, it is a more dangerous to have a car that is going a dissimilar speed than it is for you to be speeding.

Keeping right is a small mitigating factor.

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

#340

Post by jmiserez »

trothamel wrote: post #251
telchar wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True. But if there was no crosswalk within 100m (per the article) and it wasn't a highway (only 35mph limit) it's reasonable to cross without a crosswalk. Still a pedestrian shouldn't put themselves in harm's way, but I don't think crossing off the crosswalk should be help against someone in this circumstance.

It's not. But as the car has the right of way, it's the pedestrian's responsibility to make sure they're not hit.

Any reasonable human driver would try everything to not hit a pedestrian, regardless of right of way. The laws were written with common sense in mind, and if self-driving cars can’t emulate that then they’re not ready. Cars that only follow the letter of the law would be absurd.
Post reply on HN