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

Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 445 posts

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#91

Post by Johnny555 »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #77
Johnny555 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think legally, the car has to stop for an approaching pedestrian if it's physically able to stop, so if the pedestrian doesn't "stop about a foot away from your lane" as expected, you don't run into him. Though I don't know the NYC traffic code. In California, I believe 21950 paragraph C applies... the pedestrian that stops just before walking into the path of the car might be violating paragraph B since the driver…

Typically the law is broad enough and redundant enough that who's in violation is simply up to the discretion of whoever has the blue lights.

Almost, but not exactly true -- the cop can issue a ticket, but a judge decides who is actually in violation (assuming that the person that got the ticket contests it).

Always-on cameras in self-driving cars will help protect the innocent (assuming the footage is saved and available through subpoena, otherwise, like police dash and body cams, few people will let their own camera prove them guilty)

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#92

Post by usrusr »

frankharv wrote: post #60
rockostrich wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is already happening in the trucking industry. Self-driving trucks are being developed to be able to drive 99% of the trip that's on highways and then human drivers take over for the local 1%. To make it easier, transfer hubs are being built near cities off major highways to make everything easier and non-disruptive. The same thing could be done with cars without the need for the transfer hubs and it basically i…

I can't beleive they would do a trail run with an automous truck weighing 80,000lbs barreling down the freeway. This revolution should have started with mundane tasks, such as city street sweepers and perhaps garbage trucks. Vehicles that move slow on a predefined path in the night. Then advance to faster moving objects like taxis. Just like the DARPA Grand Challenge that started this mess. Many of those vehicles wer…

> I can't beleive they would do a trail run with an automous truck weighing 80,000lbs barreling down the freeway.

Fast driving necessitates predictability. Unrestricted stretches of the autobahn are not killzones because the speed breeds discipline: lanes are changed with indicators on more often than without (barely, but still..), passing lane rules are followed almost religiously, compared to what you see in America (even though drivers constantly complain about imperfections) and so on. The fastest roads of any jurisdiction would its easiest for a robot car or truck. Slow environments on the other hand are full of ad-hoc improvisation and weird traffic participants like the occasional flock of sheep, horse team or a biathlon squad on rollers.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#94

Post by dahart »

0x00000000 wrote: post #86
dahart wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I’d rather see driving behavior normalize nationally than cater to regional differences in enforcement. The driving laws in each city & state the US are less different than the locally accepted behaviors, but it would be safer all around if drivers and pedestrians all expected the same things, and if we took traffic & safety laws more seriously. More enforcement of existing traffic laws will save many ord…

It can't and won't happen without significant increase in police and traffic enforcement spending which is not always a popular position and there is little motivation. Some states just can't afford it. But in Maryland for example, 55 almost universally means 75 and if an autonomous car didn't know that they will cause many accidents due to unsafe and aggressive driving even if they are technically not "at fault"

Why’s that? Fines are income, not expenditure.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#95

Post by dahart »

Sangermaine wrote: post #81
dahart wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I’d rather see driving behavior normalize nationally than cater to regional differences in enforcement. The driving laws in each city & state the US are less different than the locally accepted behaviors, but it would be safer all around if drivers and pedestrians all expected the same things, and if we took traffic & safety laws more seriously. More enforcement of existing traffic laws will save many ord…

The "reality should conform to my ideal, not my ideal to the reality" approach is and has always been a guaranteed recipe for failure. "Let's change everyone's minds and behavior everywhere" is much harder than changing software.

That’s an ungenerous way to paraphrase what I said, given that we already have traffic laws, and enforcement of those laws.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#96

Post by Sangermaine »

dahart wrote: post #95
Sangermaine wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "reality should conform to my ideal, not my ideal to the reality" approach is and has always been a guaranteed recipe for failure. "Let's change everyone's minds and behavior everywhere" is much harder than changing software.

That’s an ungenerous way to paraphrase what I said, given that we already have traffic laws, and enforcement of those laws.

But the point is those laws aren't enforced the same way in different areas, even when they're the same. Jaywalking is illegal in NYC. Come here and see if anyone, cops included, cares. But other cities seem to care much more about that. It's not as simple as having the same laws, or having them enforced, because the underlying cultural attitudes are different. If you tried to crack down on jaywalking in NYC you'd be laughed out of the city.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#97

Post by hughes »

SilasX wrote: post #47

Sorry for the snark, but there's a joke in here about: "Uber business development saw but ignored laws it broke."

Snark aside, false-positive rejection will be an aspect of any lawful autonomous vehicle.

Incorrect false-positive rejection will be a reality, and will have to exist within lawful operation.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#98

Post by Symmetry »

wilburTheDog wrote: post #62

If I understand it right, this is the biggest blind spot of all the automated driving systems. The software just ignores stationary objects because the sensors don't have the resolution to determine whether they are in front of the car or on the side of the road. And if it didn't ignore stationary objects the car would come to a halt at every garbage can, mailbox, and bush along the road. Until they can work lidar in…

That wasn't the case at all for this collision. As the article says, the sensors had detected the woman but the information had been disregarded. And the moving object thing is exclusive to radar, vision systems don't suffer from it though vision systems have their own problems.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#99

Post by ksenzee »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #71
splouk wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or jaywalking will become more strictly enforced with policing or physical barriers. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/4/2/automated-vehic...

That's a very good argument but I don't think it will come to pass, for this reason: http://theoatmeal.com/pl/minor_differences/cutting_off There's something about driving that turns ordinary people into assholes. I've observed it in myself. Bus passengers are much more considerate, and I think that passengers in self-driving vehicles will behave like passengers, not like drivers. So if a pedestrian cuts them off the…

My theory is that people act like jerks behind the wheel, and come across as jerks even when they're not, because drivers have no way to apologize or ask please or do any other polite thing. All they can do is honk the horn, which is like yelling "HEY!!" If there were a communication mechanism for "excuse me, the light is green now" and "oops, so sorry, didn't see you there" driving would be easier and more pleasant.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#100

Post by assblaster »

lhorie wrote: post #55
assblaster wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tempe police obtained the video from Uber, Uber could have easily altered it before handing it over. Uber has behaved badly in the past, and they had the motivation and past experience to do what it takes to advance their agenda. Remember, Uber terminated its autonomous driving testing as a result of this preventable tragedy.

> Tempe police obtained the video from Uber If by "from Uber", you mean they popped the SD card from the Uber-owner car's dashcam, sure. > Uber could have easily altered it before handing it over See my comment from the last time someone had suggested the idea of doctored videos: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16644663

What's the timeframe on the video being handled, given to police, etc. Do the police have the authority to take any video files recorded by a vehicle involved in an auto accident? Is a warrant needed?

It's more likely that the police opened an investigation, and as part of the investigation, handed over dashcam footage. We have no reason to believe the police simply confiscated the video files on the night of the accident.

Post reply on HN