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

Police Say Video Shows Woman Stepped Suddenly in Front of Self-Driving Uber

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 402 posts

Re: Police Say Video Shows Woman Stepped Suddenly in Front of Self-Driving Uber

#211

Post by pharrington »

danso wrote: post #192
eddieplan9 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please stop spreading rumors and speculations. The graphic is an illustration and does not necessarily place the car in the actual lane. It clearly contradicts with the police chief’s statement that the victim walks right into traffic from center medium. It even contradicts with the left arrow pointing to the impact location in the same picture.

Please don't accuse me or other commenters of spreading "rumors and speculations", without evidence or logical arguments. I didn't state a bunch of claims, I linked to a NYT published article. If it turns out that the NYT depicted the incorrect lane, then I expect we'll see a correction. But they published this graphic staked on their reputation for accuracy, not on just "rumors". Moreover, it does not contradict wha…

"It's very hard to imagine a scenario in which a 49-year-old woman walking her bike manages to cross 3 lanes of traffic so quickly that the Uber AV, moving at 40 mph, had no time to react, in a location with good street lighting and with clear weather. I would think most humans would be able to at least hit the brakes, if not completely avoid a collision."

Imagining an approximate version of the scenario and thinking that most people would be able to do what the known unimpaired driver could not is literal speculation. You are reading more into the graphic than can be reasonably derived from the graphic, and the -text- of the graphic is itself explicitly uncertain about the victim's location before and after the collision. Your comment expresses more credulity than the very source you linked to.

If you want to speculate that the Uber driver and police are covering up negligence, that's fine. Trying to claim some sort of logical high ground in a known uncertain scenario is not.

Re: Police Say Video Shows Woman Stepped Suddenly in Front of Self-Driving Uber

#212

Post by hndamien »

hndamien wrote: post #205
hndamien wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, tough crowd. Is this on? `tap`, `tap`, `tap`

So 3 HN readers walk into a bar. The first guy says "I'll have a larger". The second HN reader says, "You actually mean a "lager", "larger" would mean a bigger drink". The third HN reader sees the raging alcoholic and the grammar police and the comedy judges and says "Make sure you get a safe ride home, but not in an autonomous Uber, because apparently "Working" includes running over pedestrians. Alternatively, just…

G-

Re: Police Say Video Shows Woman Stepped Suddenly in Front of Self-Driving Uber

#213

Post by danso »

danso wrote: post #44

The NYT just published a graphic that purports to show the location of the vehicle and the victim: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/20/us/self-drivi... This is the first report I've seen that indicates the Uber AV was in the right lane. Remember that the victim was crossing from left to right, and that all of the visible damage on the AV is on the right-side bumper. It's very hard to imagine a scenario in…

edit: I agree with other commenters that the NYT's labeling is a little too vague. My assumption is that the NYT wouldn't arbitrarily show the Uber vehicle in the far-right lane unless there was some factual basis. If it turns out the NYT did make an arbitrary choice, and Uber AV was actually in the left lane, then NYT needs to be called out to make a correction.

Frustratingly, so many stories make no mention of the lane. This is the only one I've found so far, and it's from the local news-weekly:

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/federal-agencies-investi...

> The Volvo was in the lane nearest the curb, about 100 yards south of Curry Road, and going about 40 mph at the time of the collision. Initial evidence shows the vehicle didn't brake "significantly" before the impact.

My assumption is that the writer thinks "lane nearest the curb" is unambiguous to the average reader, which would mean the right-most lane. Because...why would average reader (who isn't looking at the accident scene right now) assume that the left-most lane on any road is "nearest the curb"?

However, from Street View, we see that there are curbs on both sides of the street -- i.e. the median itself has a curb: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4368426,-111.9428855,3a,75y,...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Re: Police Say Video Shows Woman Stepped Suddenly in Front of Self-Driving Uber

#214

Post by tzs »

danso wrote: post #44

The NYT just published a graphic that purports to show the location of the vehicle and the victim: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/20/us/self-drivi... This is the first report I've seen that indicates the Uber AV was in the right lane. Remember that the victim was crossing from left to right, and that all of the visible damage on the AV is on the right-side bumper. It's very hard to imagine a scenario in…

> It's very hard to imagine a scenario in which a 49-year-old woman walking her bike manages to cross 3 lanes of traffic so quickly that the Uber AV, moving at 40 mph, had no time to react [...]

(Pure speculation follows)

I wonder if it possible that the problem is that she was moving too slowly for it, not too quickly?

If for some reason it could not get a good read on the component of her velocity parallel to the lane, it might mistake her for another vehicle moving at similar speed to the Uber, and then see her transverse velocity component as being due to normal drift within the lane. It would read the situation as a normal passing situation, not someone about to enter its lane.

Re: Police Say Video Shows Woman Stepped Suddenly in Front of Self-Driving Uber

#215

Post by skybrian »

dwighttk wrote: post #85

It is astonishing how many conflicting bits of information are slowly trickling out about this person's death.

It seems pretty common after a newsworthy crash for there to be a lot of uninformed speculation.

Investigations take time. Just like with airplane crashes, it's probably best to ignore everything about this incident until we see the results of the investigation.

Re: Police Say Video Shows Woman Stepped Suddenly in Front of Self-Driving Uber

#216

Post by bobf »

preparat wrote: post #37

Could people start wearing small transmitters that nearby autonomous vehicles can read?

I imagine phones will serve that role eventually. GPS chip accuracy is improving constantly and could be accurate to within a foot in some phones in the next year [1]. Google Maps / Waze already do something similar with predicting traffic times based on phone data (and other sources). GPS accuracy currently may make an individual's location slightly harder, but path prediction may help. (And, of course there are privacy concerns to consider.)

[1] https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2017/9/25/16362296/g...

Re: Police Say Video Shows Woman Stepped Suddenly in Front of Self-Driving Uber

#217

Post by danso »

pharrington wrote: post #211
danso wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't accuse me or other commenters of spreading "rumors and speculations", without evidence or logical arguments. I didn't state a bunch of claims, I linked to a NYT published article. If it turns out that the NYT depicted the incorrect lane, then I expect we'll see a correction. But they published this graphic staked on their reputation for accuracy, not on just "rumors". Moreover, it does not contradict wha…

"It's very hard to imagine a scenario in which a 49-year-old woman walking her bike manages to cross 3 lanes of traffic so quickly that the Uber AV, moving at 40 mph, had no time to react, in a location with good street lighting and with clear weather. I would think most humans would be able to at least hit the brakes, if not completely avoid a collision." Imagining an approximate version of the scenario and thinking…

Literally every discussion of note involves reading more into the original article, so yes, I guess you have me there, I am speculating. I didn't realize that was against the rules of HN discussion to bring in evidence external to the OP and state our premises?

Is it speculation to point out that the police and OP misidentified the gender and name of the driver (it's Rafaela Vasquez, not Rafael)? Or that newer articles have disputed the 35 mph limit?

edit: I'm not reading too much into the graphic by stating explicitly what it shows. I'm making the assumption that the NYT designer isn't being loose on the facts here and that the Uber vehicle was in the right lane.

So why can't I claim a logical basis based on the other agreed facts, such as the victim being a woman who is walking her bike across the street, and our general observation of how fast people are able to cross a lane of traffic? What set of physical laws and constants should we be using here?

Re: Police Say Video Shows Woman Stepped Suddenly in Front of Self-Driving Uber

#218

Post by hndamien »

toothbrush wrote: post #122
hndamien wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that in most cases the human has to do nothing means that it is unlikely that the human is anywhere close to being as vigilante as an actual human driver. The fact that the human is clueless isn't surprising at all. In fact this is the real danger with systems like Tesla's autopilot. You still ned to be vigilante, but you are so bored that it is hard to be. The safety humans here might as well be hood orname…

The word you're looking for is "vigilant". "Vigilante" means "a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate".

Correct. I also meant “need” and not “ned”.

Re: Police Say Video Shows Woman Stepped Suddenly in Front of Self-Driving Uber

#219

Post by ACow_Adonis »

ksk wrote: post #75

Self-driving cars are still a fantasy. I don't want the AI to be comparable to an average driver (who collectively get into 6 million accidents) . I want the AI to meet/exceed the skills of the best driver. There is no way anyone would trust an "average" driver to pickup their kids, more than themselves.

Well...except everyone who trusts anyone to pick up their kids.

On average...

Unless they're picking up their kids from lake wobegong elementary or something...

Re: Police Say Video Shows Woman Stepped Suddenly in Front of Self-Driving Uber

#220

Post by pharrington »

danso wrote: post #217
pharrington wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's very hard to imagine a scenario in which a 49-year-old woman walking her bike manages to cross 3 lanes of traffic so quickly that the Uber AV, moving at 40 mph, had no time to react, in a location with good street lighting and with clear weather. I would think most humans would be able to at least hit the brakes, if not completely avoid a collision." Imagining an approximate version of the scenario and thinking…

Literally every discussion of note involves reading more into the original article, so yes, I guess you have me there, I am speculating. I didn't realize that was against the rules of HN discussion to bring in evidence external to the OP and state our premises? Is it speculation to point out that the police and OP misidentified the gender and name of the driver (it's Rafaela Vasquez, not Rafael)? Or that newer articl…

"If you want to speculate that the Uber driver and police are covering up negligence, that's fine" - the conclusion of the comment you're replying to.

My beef is with 'Please don't accuse me or other commenters of spreading "rumors and speculations", without evidence or logical arguments.' The problem is fooling ourselves into being more certain than we can be. While this is common human behavior, especially in emotionally fraught situations, as people attempting to engage in reasonable discussion on a discussion board, we need to do better. Acknowledging our biases and limited perspective while researching and before replying improves the discussion for everyone.

addendum: what everyone agrees and states is uncertain - where on the road the victim was hit. Another area of uncertainty among us non-witnesses is the immediate traffic at the time of collision.

Post reply on HN