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

Uber’s Self-Driving Cars Were Struggling Before Arizona Crash

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 245 posts

Re: Uber’s Self-Driving Cars Were Struggling Before Arizona Crash

#21

Post by mtgx »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #6

I don't understand the fuss around this topic. In my country the law is very clear: in such a case the pedestrian has 100% of the guilt, the driver has 0% responsibility. From the movie, the pedestrian is hard to see. Yes, people point at Lidar and other systems, but human driven cars don't have anything like this: any human driver would have the accident in the same circumstances. But how about the pedestrian, didn'…

For one, because self-driving cars are supposed to be better than humans at seeing in the dark with all sorts of sensors - otherwise what would be the point of even allowing them on the road?

From the NYT article it seems that Uber's self-driving car systems may have terrible performance. Worse than humans performance is very likely at this point, especially when they seem to have this attitude towards self-driving cars:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/20/17144090/uber-car-acciden...

Also, either Uber may have potato cameras worse than a smartphone camera, or someone made that Uber video look so dark:

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/police-chief-said-uber-...

Re: Uber’s Self-Driving Cars Were Struggling Before Arizona Crash

#22

Post by yalogin »

My guess is their code is buggy or not responsive enough to deal with things at the rate it’s needed. The hardware cannot but report the data to the SoC, it’s just that their software didn’t process it in time. That should be apparent in their logs. Is that not asked or probed?

Re: Uber’s Self-Driving Cars Were Struggling Before Arizona Crash

#23

Post by ksenzee »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #6

I don't understand the fuss around this topic. In my country the law is very clear: in such a case the pedestrian has 100% of the guilt, the driver has 0% responsibility. From the movie, the pedestrian is hard to see. Yes, people point at Lidar and other systems, but human driven cars don't have anything like this: any human driver would have the accident in the same circumstances. But how about the pedestrian, didn'…

You honestly think any alert human driver would have slammed into her as fast as that car did? I saw her in the video soon enough to have reacted, and I figure my driving skills are average. And that's assuming the lighting really was as bad as it looks from the video, which is dubious. My guess is that if I'd been driving I would have had time to slow down some, possibly saving her life.

I also find it in bad taste to blame this woman for her own death. There may have been a good reason she didn't see the car coming, but we won't ever know, will we?

Re: Uber’s Self-Driving Cars Were Struggling Before Arizona Crash

#24

Post by nickcoury »

oneshoe wrote: post #14
AdrianB1 wrote: post #6

I don't understand the fuss around this topic. In my country the law is very clear: in such a case the pedestrian has 100% of the guilt, the driver has 0% responsibility. From the movie, the pedestrian is hard to see. Yes, people point at Lidar and other systems, but human driven cars don't have anything like this: any human driver would have the accident in the same circumstances. But how about the pedestrian, didn'…

I don't know what country you live in but, in Arizona it is different: http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/pedestrian-cross... The pedestrian had the right-away in this particular situation. EDIT :: Looks like I read that first sentence wrong (my apologies)... "Vehicles must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians within a crosswalk that are in the same half of the roadway as the vehicle or when a pedestrian is…

My reading of it was the opposite: > Pedestrians must yield the right-of-way to vehicles when crossing outside of a marked crosswalk or an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.

If a pedestrian is inside a crosswalk they almost always have the right of way. Outside a crosswalk it is not the case.

Re: Uber’s Self-Driving Cars Were Struggling Before Arizona Crash

#25

Post by mkolodny »

oneshoe wrote: post #14
AdrianB1 wrote: post #6

I don't understand the fuss around this topic. In my country the law is very clear: in such a case the pedestrian has 100% of the guilt, the driver has 0% responsibility. From the movie, the pedestrian is hard to see. Yes, people point at Lidar and other systems, but human driven cars don't have anything like this: any human driver would have the accident in the same circumstances. But how about the pedestrian, didn'…

I don't know what country you live in but, in Arizona it is different: http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/pedestrian-cross... The pedestrian had the right-away in this particular situation. EDIT :: Looks like I read that first sentence wrong (my apologies)... "Vehicles must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians within a crosswalk that are in the same half of the roadway as the vehicle or when a pedestrian is…

The link you shared disagrees with you - it says that in Arizona vehicles always have the right-of-way outside of crosswalks:

"Pedestrians must yield the right-of-way to vehicles when crossing outside of a marked crosswalk or an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection. Where traffic control devices are in operation, pedestrians may only cross between two adjacent intersections in a marked crosswalk."

Re: Uber’s Self-Driving Cars Were Struggling Before Arizona Crash

#26

Post by [deleted] »

oneshoe wrote: post #14
AdrianB1 wrote: post #6

I don't understand the fuss around this topic. In my country the law is very clear: in such a case the pedestrian has 100% of the guilt, the driver has 0% responsibility. From the movie, the pedestrian is hard to see. Yes, people point at Lidar and other systems, but human driven cars don't have anything like this: any human driver would have the accident in the same circumstances. But how about the pedestrian, didn'…

I don't know what country you live in but, in Arizona it is different: http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/pedestrian-cross... The pedestrian had the right-away in this particular situation. EDIT :: Looks like I read that first sentence wrong (my apologies)... "Vehicles must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians within a crosswalk that are in the same half of the roadway as the vehicle or when a pedestrian is…

[deleted]

Re: Uber’s Self-Driving Cars Were Struggling Before Arizona Crash

#27

Post by [deleted] »

dbt00 wrote: post #15
AdrianB1 wrote: post #6

I don't understand the fuss around this topic. In my country the law is very clear: in such a case the pedestrian has 100% of the guilt, the driver has 0% responsibility. From the movie, the pedestrian is hard to see. Yes, people point at Lidar and other systems, but human driven cars don't have anything like this: any human driver would have the accident in the same circumstances. But how about the pedestrian, didn'…

It would help if you actually state the country in question, so we can properly judge your statement's applicability. In the USA laws vary by state -- in California it is typically almost always incumbent on the driver to avoid pedestrians. I've also traveled to countries like Jordan where the driver is always at fault, and fatally striking a pedestrian would have lifelong consequences for a driver.

[deleted]

Re: Uber’s Self-Driving Cars Were Struggling Before Arizona Crash

#28

Post by [deleted] »

cozzyd wrote: post #13
AdrianB1 wrote: post #6

I don't understand the fuss around this topic. In my country the law is very clear: in such a case the pedestrian has 100% of the guilt, the driver has 0% responsibility. From the movie, the pedestrian is hard to see. Yes, people point at Lidar and other systems, but human driven cars don't have anything like this: any human driver would have the accident in the same circumstances. But how about the pedestrian, didn'…

The video has poor dynamic range and is likely highly misleading. If the safety driver were paying attention it's quite likely they could have avoided it (although I imagine disengagement would negatively affect reaction time).

[deleted]

Re: Uber’s Self-Driving Cars Were Struggling Before Arizona Crash

#29

Post by pfarnsworth »

ehsankia wrote: post #20
danso wrote: post #4

> As of March, Uber was struggling to meet its target of 13 miles per “intervention” in Arizona For reference’s sake, here are the disengagement ratios for the companies who operate in California, which requires such disclosures: https://www.google.com/amp/s/thelastdriverlicenseholder.com/... Waymo averaged more than 5,000 miles per disengagement, fwiw. Though as the link mentions, the definition of “disengagement” c…

Arizona, and all states really, should make this data and much more mandatory for testing. Not only that, but there needs to be a "minimum capability" you need to be able to prove before you're allowed to test on public roads. No wonder Uber stopped driving in California, they didn't want people to see in what disastrous state their technology is. It's honestly ridiculous how reckless they are, all in the name of "wi…

They were driving in San Francisco up until the accident, and stopped their tests.

Re: Uber’s Self-Driving Cars Were Struggling Before Arizona Crash

#30

Post by sumeno »

oneshoe wrote: post #14
AdrianB1 wrote: post #6

I don't understand the fuss around this topic. In my country the law is very clear: in such a case the pedestrian has 100% of the guilt, the driver has 0% responsibility. From the movie, the pedestrian is hard to see. Yes, people point at Lidar and other systems, but human driven cars don't have anything like this: any human driver would have the accident in the same circumstances. But how about the pedestrian, didn'…

I don't know what country you live in but, in Arizona it is different: http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/pedestrian-cross... The pedestrian had the right-away in this particular situation. EDIT :: Looks like I read that first sentence wrong (my apologies)... "Vehicles must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians within a crosswalk that are in the same half of the roadway as the vehicle or when a pedestrian is…

That page is about crosswalks. The person who was hit was not in a crosswalk.
Post reply on HN