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

41–50 of 245 posts

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

#41

Post by mhalle »

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'…

Whether the pedestrian is legally at fault is only part of the issue. Failure to yield is a ticket, not a death sentence. The driver also has no legal right to strike the pedestrian.

Every driver (or equivalent) has a responsibility, be it legal or moral, to use all reasonable means to avoid crashes, injuries, and loss of life.

No one will accept autonomous vehicles that do anything less. If anything, an autonomous vehicle may be expected to avoid risk to humans by suffering self-damage.

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

#42

Post by ocdtrekkie »

tptacek wrote: post #37

Is it harder to stay attentive in an autonomous car than it is as a normal driver?

Significantly, because you aren't engaged with the environment. You are just watching the car drive in circles, which is slightly more engaging than watching paint dry.

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

#43

Post by habosa »

cozzyd wrote: post #5

I thought the conventional wisdom was that the only way Uber can become profitable was through autonomous vehicles. It sounds like they're very unlikely to succeed at that... Arizona should consider improving their regulations to try to avoid additional fatalities.

They could always buy from someone else ... but uber seems to have extreme competitor paranoia when it comes to buying any services.

I think they also spent $500M to make their own maps when you could use any of the popular mapping APIs out there.

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

#44

Post by jpao79 »

Isn't this where a humanoid robot (i.e. some sort of Boston Dynamics type robot) doing random, erratic stuff might be handy?

Maybe put a bunch of them in a test track area like this one in Concord, California. Gomentum is Silicon Valley's secretive test track for self-driving cars:

https://www.cnet.com/videos/inside-silicon-valleys-secretive...

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

#45

Post by teraflop »

tptacek wrote: post #37

Is it harder to stay attentive in an autonomous car than it is as a normal driver?

Yes. This is a well-known psychological phenomenon; see e.g. https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2016/5/201592-the-challenges-...

> When a navigation system performs well over extended periods, drivers may no longer feel they need to pay close attention. Indeed, many psychological studies show people have trouble focusing their attention when there is little or nothing to attend to. In such situations, they tend to reduce their active involvement and simply obey the automation. There is already ample evidence drivers disengage from the navigation task when the automation is programmed to lead the way. But how pervasive is this? Casner and Schooler found even well-trained airline pilots report engaging in copious amounts of task-unrelated thought, or "mind wandering," when an advanced navigation system is being used and all is nominally going to plan.

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

#46

Post by ehsankia »

fabian2k wrote: post #19

> Waymo, formerly the self-driving car project of Google, said that in tests on roads in California last year, its cars went an average of nearly 5,600 miles before the driver had to take control from the computer to steer out of trouble. As of March, Uber was struggling to meet its target of 13 miles per “intervention” in Arizona There can certainly be arguments about whether the kind of miles driven are equivalent…

I mean, in terms of "conditions", it doesn't really get much better than Arizona. That's why most cars drive there. By most metrics, it's actually easier there than in California.

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

#47

Post by AdrianB1 »

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.

The country is Romania and the law is very precise: if the pedestrian is not on a crosswalkk, any accident is the fault of the pedestrian. Funny, I lived in Jordan as my parents were expats there. Never heard about a case where a pedestrian hit by a car outside of a city had any consequences for the driver.

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

#48

Post by aresant »

I just don't fully understand why Uber is attempting to compete at the technology level.

The most important components, like the Lidar systems, are all third party and non-exclusive.

And the likely current market leader in the tech - Waymo - has made many indications that they see their largest opportunity as providing the technology through partnerships.

Heck there's even been noise recently that Uber IS trying to license Waymo's tech (1)

And then you have major auto manufacturers are also pouring BILLIONS into the space because guess what - they still want to sell cars without having to pay a Waymo tax!

Today Uber owns 70 - 80% of the current US ride sharing market and are in ~700 other international cities (2).

And they have thousands of employees that act as local stewards of ride sharing etc, real infrastructure on the ground & politically that should give them some cushion to sort things out.

So yes, maybe Uber's valuation would take a hit if they relied on Waymo, or an auto manufacturer.

But maybe Travis' infamous quote about "I have to be tied for first at the least." needs another look or revision at this point? (3)

Maybe it's ok for Waymo to be first in a field of their own if it means not killing fucking pedestrians?

(1) https://www.engadget.com/2018/03/05/uber-waymo-partnership-f...

(2) http://www.businessofapps.com/data/uber-statistics/

(3) http://www.businessinsider.com/travis-kalanick-interview-on-...

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

#49

Post by ehsankia »

jpao79 wrote: post #44

Isn't this where a humanoid robot (i.e. some sort of Boston Dynamics type robot) doing random, erratic stuff might be handy? Maybe put a bunch of them in a test track area like this one in Concord, California. Gomentum is Silicon Valley's secretive test track for self-driving cars: https://www.cnet.com/videos/inside-silicon-valleys-secretive...

Waymo has their own too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3-2XuKdbMI

I do agree that there needs to be a minimum requirement you should reach before being allowed to drive on public roads. Companies should not be alpha testing with human lives.

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

#50

Post by AdrianB1 »

jvalencia wrote: post #10
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'…

Wouldn't those with greater power (the power to kill) be tasked with greater responsibility?

No. If you jump in front of a train, is the train driver's fault? Where is the pedestrian's responsibility?
Post reply on HN