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

221–230 of 245 posts

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

#221

Post by joncrane »

galdosdi wrote: post #207
hunter23 wrote: post #63

This is how I would deal with it if I was a regulator: * Revoke Uber's license to operate - While they might not be found at fault, they have shown gross negligence by having an operator that doesn't observe the road, computer vision that can't sense a pedestrian crossing several lanes even when their LIDAR manufacturer says they could, and an algorithm which encouraged the car to speed 3 mph over the limit when it w…

I'm about to get my hack license (taxicab operator) in NYC. I learned in taxi school yesterday that in NY, any fatality or serious injury involving a taxi (including ubers etc) triggers an instant suspension of the driver's hack license until an investigation is complete (and if the investigation finds the driver was at fault, the suspension becomes a permanent revocation) I don't see why an experimental self driving…

Why are you getting a hack license?

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

#222

Post by arcticfox »

Erlangolem wrote: post #161
spaceribs wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be morally bankrupt to rely entirely on a quantitative test for something that is qualitative, I don't know how much clearer with the previous comment I can get?

You’re being obtuse. It’s morally bankrupt to experiment on humans without their informed consent. At least, I hope you’re being obtuse, and not just utterly broken.

You're missing the fact that any time someone takes a drug, they're essentially testing it against their unique body chemistry. The same as self-driving cars in unique situations.

The only difference is the car feedback loop is way better instrumented, and doesn't have to rely on mass statistics to inform recalls.

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

#223

Post by tetromino_ »

Retric wrote: post #133
spaceribs wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds expensive, unnecessary and would result in creating systems that were built to defeat a test, not reality. Most current human drivers wouldn't be able to pass a test with the conditions that resulted in the fatal crash.

That video is hardly representative, you don't need street lights to see people at night. Simple car headlights are plenty to see someone in time to stop at 45 MPH. The 'driver' was not paying attention and the software failed. An attentive human driver acting alone would have easily stopped.

> Simple car headlights are plenty to see someone in time to stop at 45 MPH.

That's a common misconception. You will see the pedestrian in time if they are near a street light or wearing something reflective. In complete darkness, if the pedestrian is wearing bright, colorful clothing (say, a yellow jacket), you will see them from 120 feet or so; often enough to react and come to a full stop, but not if the road is slippery or the driver less than fully attentive. And a pedestrian wearing black in the darkness is a dead pedestrian, basically invisible until the vehicle is on them.

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

#224

Post by Erlangolem »

user5994461 wrote: post #204
thaumasiotes wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Half of all humans who have ever lived, died from mosquito-borne illnes[s], about 5,000,000,000 human lives. Your math doesn't work. The current population of the world is between 7 and 8 billion. If half of all humans who have ever lived were 5 billion, the total number of people who have ever lived would be 10 billion, of which at least 7 billion are still alive . That leaves less than 5 billion who could possibl…

“Modern” Homo sapiens (that is, people who were roughly like we are now) first walked the Earth about 50,000 years ago. Since then, more than 108 billion members of our species have ever been born, according to estimates by Population Reference Bureau (PRB). Source: https://www.prb.org/howmanypeoplehaveeverlivedonearth/

I dropped a zero, my bad.

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

#225

Post by nimblegorilla »

spaceribs wrote: post #154
Erlangolem wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, medical research would be so much faster and easier and cheaper if we could just test new drugs and devices and procedures on humans. We don’t. We shouldn’t. Half of all humans who have ever lived, died from mosquito-borne illnes, about 5,000,000,000 human lives. People who argue that the relatively paltry number of people killed by automobiles justifies a little “sacrifice” to prevent it in the future, nev…

I think comparing this to human drug trials is an appeal to emotion. I also think you're saying that bad tests are better than no tests, which I don't agree with. These would be bad tests because they wouldn't constitute the complicated reality of driving, they inherently only summarize the output of such a complex system.

You seem to have confused the concept of bad tests with incomplete tests. Asking to stop the car when pedestrian shaped obstacles appear seems like a bare minimum that we should expect from an AI before letting it drive on real roads. We can't test every driving situation in a lab, but that doesn't mean we can't test some of them.

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

#227

Post by Retric »

tetromino_ wrote: post #223
Retric wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That video is hardly representative, you don't need street lights to see people at night. Simple car headlights are plenty to see someone in time to stop at 45 MPH. The 'driver' was not paying attention and the software failed. An attentive human driver acting alone would have easily stopped.

> Simple car headlights are plenty to see someone in time to stop at 45 MPH. That's a common misconception. You will see the pedestrian in time if they are near a street light or wearing something reflective. In complete darkness, if the pedestrian is wearing bright, colorful clothing (say, a yellow jacket), you will see them from 120 feet or so; often enough to react and come to a full stop, but not if the road is s…

I have stopped at 45MPH to a black dude crossing the street in dark blue clothing viable only in my headlights. Night vision degrades with age, but it's simply unsafe to out-speed your headlights and if you can't see you need to slow down.

Now, some mostly older cars have terrible headlights, but that's another story. http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/51/3/1 Note Uber hit someone in bluejeans and a pink bike which is not that dark: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/22/video-rel...

PS: Just Starlight aka no moon and no clouds is plenty of light to see and walk around. I can't read small text, but you really should not be blind at night.

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

#228

Post by chrismcb »

acranox wrote: post #214
kosievdmerwe wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's important to follow the average speed of the traffic you are in, if you keep to the speed limit while driving slower than the average your driving causes a danger on the road by causing people to drive around you and changing lanes and speeds is where accidents happen.

The slow driver isn’t creating the danger though. It’s all the drivers going over that actually create the danger you describe. If everyone just followed the laws, the danger you describe would no longer exist. Normalization if traffic violations is compounding the problem of the danger we face on the roads. So many problems could be solved and so many lives saved if people just followed the laws. The fact that every…

In Arizona, it is not against the law to drive over the speed limit. But it is against the law to speed, or drive too fast for the given conditions. Driving over the limit is evidence that you might be speeding. If everyone else is driving above the limit, and you aren't, you are the one causing the danger.

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

#229

Post by chrismcb »

saas_co_de wrote: post #131
hunter23 wrote: post #63

This is how I would deal with it if I was a regulator: * Revoke Uber's license to operate - While they might not be found at fault, they have shown gross negligence by having an operator that doesn't observe the road, computer vision that can't sense a pedestrian crossing several lanes even when their LIDAR manufacturer says they could, and an algorithm which encouraged the car to speed 3 mph over the limit when it w…

How about blame the driver behind the wheel who was hired to drive the car and was 100% responsible for everything that happened? Funny how the pile on is targeted at Uber and the tech, when this is a test vehicle with a human driver who was hired to be responsible to monitor, respond, and override the computer at all times. The human failed. Blame the computer. Makes sense.

While that person wasn't looking at the road, the blame should fall on Uber and the state of Arizona. Someone sitting behind a wheel and not digging is going to have a much slower reaction time than someone driving. These cars were not ready to be driving at such speeds at night.

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

#230

Post by tetromino_ »

Retric wrote: post #227
tetromino_ wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Simple car headlights are plenty to see someone in time to stop at 45 MPH. That's a common misconception. You will see the pedestrian in time if they are near a street light or wearing something reflective. In complete darkness, if the pedestrian is wearing bright, colorful clothing (say, a yellow jacket), you will see them from 120 feet or so; often enough to react and come to a full stop, but not if the road is s…

I have stopped at 45MPH to a black dude crossing the street in dark blue clothing viable only in my headlights. Night vision degrades with age, but it's simply unsafe to out-speed your headlights and if you can't see you need to slow down. Now, some mostly older cars have terrible headlights, but that's another story. http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/51/3/1 Note Uber hit someone in bluejeans and a pin…

Here's the Finnish road safety council infographic about pedestrian reflectors (required by law in Finland): https://www.liikenneturva.fi/en/road-safety/reflector

They claim a pedestrian without reflectors can be seen from 50 m with low beams. Other source I've seen break it down by the color of clothing; white might be seen from 50 m (160 feet), yellow from 37 m (120 feet), and darker colors even worse, down to black which is visible from a distance too short to react.

High beams are a much different story, of course. And perhaps the numbers for HID lamps on a luxury car are better - at the expense of blinding and distracting the other drivers on the road.

Post reply on HN