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

Mobileye says its software would have seen pedestrian in Uber fatality

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 91 posts

Re: Mobileye says its software would have seen pedestrian in Uber fatality

#31

Post by JustSomeNobody »

zer00eyz wrote: post #27
reificator wrote: post #3

Look. It's generating bad press right now for your industry. I get that. I also think that in the long run your industry will be far safer than human drivers. But now is not the time to post speculative bullshit like this. Would your car also have run into a school shooting unarmed? You weren't in that situation, you don't know all the edge cases, the best you can say is that you had a similar situation under control…

Except their technology was ON the car that was involved... they are part of the story - Uber turned their gear off in favor of their own.

Given that, maybe they're trying to head off some potential bad press if a journalist gets some facts incorrect.

Re: Mobileye says its software would have seen pedestrian in Uber fatality

#32

Post by tintor »

wpietri wrote: post #23
thrownaway954 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i know it will sound insensitive, but one person dying is not that big of a deal... heck 1000 people dying is only 10% of the amount of people that die each year for drunk driving[1] and you don't see liquor being pulled off the shelves. however i do see how people (including me) are sheep and can be manipulated into believing anything. taxis and trucker unions can use this an opportunity to condemn self driving vehi…

That doesn't just sound insensitive. Watching the video, I'm convinced that person died for no good reason beyond Uber rushing tech out the door before it was ready. An alert human would have braked and swerved in that circumstance. People do die from drunk driving, and those drivers go to jail because they fucked up in a huge way. That's no reason to give Uber a dead-person mulligan. Indeed, it's a reason that some…

Should Uber Test Driver go to jail? She was on camera looking down at her phone at the moment of accident.

Re: Mobileye says its software would have seen pedestrian in Uber fatality

#33

Post by nmeofthestate »

pdpi wrote: post #30
zer00eyz wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except their technology was ON the car that was involved... they are part of the story - Uber turned their gear off in favor of their own.

The whole point is that uber is developing their own gear. Dunno about you, but for me giving two self-driving systems control over the car at same time seems like a recipe for disaster. Of course they turned off the other systems.

They certainly averted disaster, didn't they.

Re: Mobileye says its software would have seen pedestrian in Uber fatality

#34

Post by knuththetruth »

pdpi wrote: post #30
zer00eyz wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except their technology was ON the car that was involved... they are part of the story - Uber turned their gear off in favor of their own.

The whole point is that uber is developing their own gear. Dunno about you, but for me giving two self-driving systems control over the car at same time seems like a recipe for disaster. Of course they turned off the other systems.

All kinds of technology that’s less half-baked than Uber’s self-driving cars has redundant, decoupled safety systems.

Might be better for Uber’s data collection to turn this off, but you really can’t argue it was safer. I don’t think we should be killing people because that works better for their business needs.

Re: Mobileye says its software would have seen pedestrian in Uber fatality

#35

Post by linsomniac »

Ok, Mobileye would have seen the pedestrian 1 second before impact. That's not important though...

The important thing is would it have saved her life? Would it have taken action and if so when and how?

It's not clear that Uber's platform didn't see the pedestrian. In fact, I find it unlikely that it didn't see her, between radar and the bike, lidar, and optical (and sonar).

I think the situation here is that there were many failures and decisions that led to this death. Some of it is Uber being too cowboy, but there are a lot of other factors too.

Re: Mobileye says its software would have seen pedestrian in Uber fatality

#36

Post by vinceguidry »

tintor wrote: post #32
wpietri wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't just sound insensitive. Watching the video, I'm convinced that person died for no good reason beyond Uber rushing tech out the door before it was ready. An alert human would have braked and swerved in that circumstance. People do die from drunk driving, and those drivers go to jail because they fucked up in a huge way. That's no reason to give Uber a dead-person mulligan. Indeed, it's a reason that some…

Should Uber Test Driver go to jail? She was on camera looking down at her phone at the moment of accident.

She absolutely should, in my opinion.

Re: Mobileye says its software would have seen pedestrian in Uber fatality

#37

Post by reaperducer »

icebraining wrote: post #5
reificator wrote: post #3

Look. It's generating bad press right now for your industry. I get that. I also think that in the long run your industry will be far safer than human drivers. But now is not the time to post speculative bullshit like this. Would your car also have run into a school shooting unarmed? You weren't in that situation, you don't know all the edge cases, the best you can say is that you had a similar situation under control…

One fear is that Uber's mistakes will endanger the whole self-driving industry, by making people afraid. I'd say these companies are trying to separate themselves to avoid that.

I imagine we'll see self-driving car horror movies soon.

We've had them in the past (Christine, Trucks, Herbie the Love Bug), but the only thing Hollywood loves more than latching on to a trend (Emoji Movie) is blowing something out of proportion.

Re: Mobileye says its software would have seen pedestrian in Uber fatality

#38

Post by reificator »

reaperducer wrote: post #37
icebraining wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One fear is that Uber's mistakes will endanger the whole self-driving industry, by making people afraid. I'd say these companies are trying to separate themselves to avoid that.

I imagine we'll see self-driving car horror movies soon. We've had them in the past (Christine, Trucks, Herbie the Love Bug), but the only thing Hollywood loves more than latching on to a trend (Emoji Movie) is blowing something out of proportion.

Just last year that was an arc in Ash vs Evil Dead.

Granted it was self-driving thanks to a book inked in blood and bound with human flesh, but that's beside the point...

Re: Mobileye says its software would have seen pedestrian in Uber fatality

#39

Post by c22 »

pdpi wrote: post #30
zer00eyz wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except their technology was ON the car that was involved... they are part of the story - Uber turned their gear off in favor of their own.

The whole point is that uber is developing their own gear. Dunno about you, but for me giving two self-driving systems control over the car at same time seems like a recipe for disaster. Of course they turned off the other systems.

Mobileye isn't a "self-driving" system, it's a collision prevention/mitigation system, like airbags or ABS. Leaving it on while a human controls the car hasn't been seen as a disaster.

Re: Mobileye says its software would have seen pedestrian in Uber fatality

#40

Post by stingraycharles »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #31
zer00eyz wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except their technology was ON the car that was involved... they are part of the story - Uber turned their gear off in favor of their own.

Given that, maybe they're trying to head off some potential bad press if a journalist gets some facts incorrect.

Yeah this looks more like a defensive move than an opportunitistic marketing opportunity as OP framed it to be.
Post reply on HN