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

51–60 of 245 posts

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

#51

Post by FLUX-YOU »

teraflop wrote: post #45
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…

I bet night driving compounds with this.

It may be reasonable to ban night-city autonomous near the beginning of the technology's public introduction driving, regardless of how well the car can see at night.

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

#52

Post by ehsankia »

pfarnsworth wrote: post #29
ehsankia wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hmm, then how are they bypassing the disengagement report?

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/disen...

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

#53

Post by AdrianB1 »

wavefunction wrote: post #12
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'…

Why should we accept your puny and limited human capability of "vision" as an excuse for a superior machine capable of much quicker reaction times and outfitted with a plethora of sensors that operate far beyond your narrow natural limitations.

Why should a pedestrian cross the street at nigh on a high speed street (over 30mhp limit) in front of a car? Did she know the car is controlled by a superior machine capable of much quicker reaction times and outfitted with a plenthora of sensors? Really guys? Blame anyone else except the pedestrian walking in front of a car? What if there was a train instead of a car, plenty of sensors and equipment? You completely lost your moral compass, I think.

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

#54

Post by greydata »

ehsankia wrote: post #52
pfarnsworth wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Hmm, then how are they bypassing the disengagement report? https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/disen...

I believe they got a permit after the last cutoff date, they'll show up in the next one most likely.

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

#55

Post by AdrianB1 »

ksenzee wrote: post #23
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…

Is it bad taste to point to the obvious? Really? You may be superman, your 70 year old grandma is also that fast avoiding ninjas on a highway?

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

#56

Post by jpao79 »

ehsankia wrote: post #49
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.

Cool - was not aware of that one. At some point during the qualification process, multiple self driving competing car vendors should be put in the same test bed at the same time for a month of continuous 24/7 driving.

The test bed should have the 'average moving car density' equivalent to that of an SF/NYC neighborhood.

Let the robots test themselves and risk their 'lives' first before putting real human lives in the mix!

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

#57

Post by vkou »

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…

But then they won't be able to win the regulatory arbitrage game. Why do you think Uber left California to test in Arizona? If the regulations were equivalent, do you think they would have done that?

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

#58

Post by mnm1 »

13 miles / intervention. These cars should not have been on the road. Period. That's pathetic. Uber should be held criminally liable for this. And so should whomever approved their application in the AZ gov't. Maybe the driver too, if she knew this statistic. Her manager who sent her out solo for sure. This is truly outrageous. I'm full support of autonomous vehicle development but not when there is clearly zero oversight by authorities.

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

#59

Post by vkou »

macspoofing wrote: post #36
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.

Uber is cheaper than cabs ... Is there a reason why Uber needs to be cheaper than cabs?

It's only cheaper because it's operating at a loss. Taxis do not operate at a loss.

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

#60

Post by jpao79 »

aresant wrote: post #48

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 l…

I agree - Uber's definitely not going to fare well. Maybe Travis' thinking/realization was that Uber is just an app and maybe the major auto manufacturers will realize that and not want to pay the Uber Tax and just put their cars out on the road using their own in-house hailing app? Also prior to the accidents - it was great free media coverage for the future IPO when talking with investors and recruiting smart engineers.
Post reply on HN