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

351–360 of 402 posts

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

#351

Post by jamesrcole »

ttctciyf wrote: post #321
ajross wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your own story disproves your conclusion. Your driving instructor, like many (many) other drivers, didn't make the infererence that you did. People don't drive well. Cars are dangerous. The criterion (really the only criterion) for whether or not automatic vehicles "should be on the road" is whether or not they are safer than the alternative. And that certainly doesn't include "being as good a driver as jdavis703 was…

The instructor, though, wasn't the one driving. Being engaged in a particular role relative to a situation can (I believe) alter one's capacity to perceive and respond to it. This isn't to say that for definite the instructor would have had the insight described in the parent post, but it is to say that you can't rule this out just based on the information that as a passenger they didn't have the insight.

But I think we can say that many human drivers would not have slowed down in that situation.

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

#352

Post by gjm11 »

notahacker wrote: post #176
lolc wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree fully with your first paragraph and I chuckled at the "trolley problems all the way down" depiction. However I can't imagine a car company accepting the legal liability of allowing their autonomous cars to go over posted speed limits to "match traffic". In a trolley problem you have the option to refuse a decision. By participating in "speed matching" you become one of the trolleys and you have accepted the u…

Oh, I'm pretty sure that self driving software isn't being programmed to systematically disregard speed limits to match traffic, not even by a company with Uber's attitude towards regulations, but it is an example of conditions where rigid adherence to speed limits might increase rather than reduce risk.

With enough self-driving cars on the road (which of course there aren't now), rigid adherence to speed limits might change the safest-and-easiest driving speed for everyone and lead to everyone driving at the limit rather than everyone everyone driving 5mph (or 10mph or whatever) above the limit.

So the safest reasonable thing for self-driving cars to do could depend on how many of them there are around.

(Of course there are other considerations of that sort. E.g., if all cars on the roads were self-driving then they could coordinate with one another in interesting ways and maybe go substantially faster than human-driven cars for a given level of safety. Maybe not, though, because of risks to pedestrians.)

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

#353

Post by danso »

YawningAngel wrote: post #344
danso wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Err, what? I don't follow at all. Don't roads have curbs on both sides?

When someone thinks of an average road/street, they (probably) think of opposing lanes of traffic. Curbside would be right-side. Yes, there is a curb on the left-side of the street, but it is on the far side of the opposing lane.

Example: if I tell you to drive two blocks down a "normal" street and then pull over to the curb, you will most likely not pull over to the curb on the opposite side of the street.

Also, isn't "curbside" used when talking about valet services, which generally have you pull over to a curb on the right when meeting the valet? (I don't know, I don't have the opportunity very often)

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

#354

Post by stordoff »

Sargos wrote: post #64
preparat wrote: post #37

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

This is about as feasible as putting smart chips in all roads so that cars know where the lanes are.

Roads are generally marked, and often have elements embedded in the surface (e.g. [1]). As self-driving cars become more prevalent, I don't see why you wouldn't adjust new/replaced markings to be something more readable by those vehicles. It obviously can't be the only signal used (because it's infeasible to change everything immediately, not all roads are marked, and wear/damage may make them unusable) but it may help improve reliability/accuracy.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat%27s_eye_(road)

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

#355

Post by stordoff »

preparat wrote: post #37

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

That sounds like something that will immediately be abused for tracking people, and an over-reliance on it may make it more dangerous for people not carrying one (don't want to, can't afford, signal blocked by item/clothing, simply forget etc.).

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

#356

Post by cesarb »

akkat wrote: post #292
paul7986 wrote: post #274

Oh it's her fault she was jay walking and the robots now take precedence. No need to ticket jay walkers! Uber's fleet will take care of these law breakers! Ridiculous and this company after all it's done is still around and now it's killing people!

I assure you that if you jump in front of a moving train you will be killed. How is this different?

The main difference is that a train, even under emergency braking, can't stop quickly, and it also can't swerve to avoid an obstacle. If you jump in front of a moving train, even if the train driver could see you before you jumped and could predict you would jump, you will get hit.

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

#357

Post by ataturk »

kevlavery wrote: post #347
leereeves wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SUVs have use value as well: driving in difficult conditions.

Very few people actually use SUVs for this and many modern ones aren't even that good at anything beyond a rainy day.

What sort of little bubble do you live in? Where I live people get pretty good utility out of their sport utility vehicles! We have had a ton of snow this winter, including a couple of storms where having ground clearance was key to getting around. The snow was coming down so hard that the plows couldn't keep up. I saw who got stuck and who didn't in that big storm. The interstates were a mess, secondary roads had 2' banks where plows had only gone through in one direction. Front-wheel drive cars and minivans were stuck everywhere, as were tractor trailers, RWD cars without snow tires, and so forth. Everything AWD was still moving pretty well.

Now if you're saying people with true low and high range 4wd trucks and SUVs don't go rock crawling with them that much, that's probably true, but those vehicles have a lot of utility doing things like pulling a boat trailer up a wet boat ramp, driving on a frozen lake to go ice fishing, and driving on farm roads or other unimproved surfaces.

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

#358

Post by netsharc »

oh_sigh wrote: post #199
netsharc wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, considering the whole thing is in a test phase, they must have a recording of all the sensor data, including what the cameras saw.

I wonder if they have a camera pointed at the safety driver? I'm curious if he is telling the truth, or was just distracted and could have theoretically braked for the woman.

Interestingly, pointing the finger at the driver is a get-out-of-"jail" card for Uber, but will ruin his life.

They can claim he's an integral safety for the test of the whole self-driving system, and he failed to do his job.

Which would make other safety drivers either think "I have to pay 100 %attention" (which they should, anyway), or "I'm outta here!"

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

#359

Post by stordoff »

mschuster91 wrote: post #144
lsaferite wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that in Europe a criminal record is hidden from all but LEOs after 7 years as well.

Depends on the country and the type of offense(s). I'm fine with justified accesses for employers - e.g. a trucking company might be allowed to ask the state "has XYZ committed a drunk/drugged or other driving offense in the last 3 years", but I see no valid reason to (involuntarily) disclosing to any new employer that someone has been sentenced for public urination or fare dodging. AFAIK, there is no such "filtering…

> The state should provide an interface for employers to input the personal data of the candidate and the job the candidate is applying for, and the interface should simply give a "OK", "not OK", "no way OK" (e.g. for pedophiles applying for childcare jobs) and "OK with conditions".

This sounds vaguely similar to the approach taken in the UK. For most jobs, you can't refuse to employ someone because of spent convictions (and the applicant isn't required to tell the employer of them), and sentences up to 4 years are considered spent after a certain amount of time[1]. The employer cannot request a criminal records check, and if an individual requests their own record it will only show details of unspent convictions.

For certain roles (e.g. healthcare or childcare), a employer can request a criminal records search which WILL show spent convictions, as as you indict certain offenses will permanently make someone unsuitable for those jobs. There are three levels:

* a standard check shows spent and unspent convictions, cautions, reprimands and final warnings * an enhanced check shows the same as a standard check plus any information held by local police that’s considered relevant to the role * an enhanced check with barred lists shows the same as an enhanced check plus whether the applicant is on the list of people barred from doing the role[2]

Which of these an employer is allowed to do depends on the job in question (e.g. becoming a solicitor -> standard check, working in an elderly care home as a cleaner -> enhanced check without the adult's barred list check, working in a school -> enhanced check with the children's barred list check).

[1] https://www.gov.uk/exoffenders-and-employment [2] https://www.gov.uk/dbs-check-applicant-criminal-record

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

#360

Post by dpark »

mirimir wrote: post #325
dpark wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there’s not enough light for the cameras, LIDAR would get emphasized, not de-emphasized.

Thanks. So in this case, how come the woman wasn't identified based on the LIDAR data?

No idea
Post reply on HN