Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck • Hacker News Board

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#201

Post by digikata » Mon, May 07, 2018, 11:22 PM UTC

mnm1 wrote: post #185

digikata wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the disturbing thing to me is that there wasn't any sort of layered reliability approach to the testing process itself. When you know you're going to be testing changes to a very complex, multi-sensor real-world system, it would be a standard approach to lay in a more foundational set of technology and practices to the system tests to serve as a conservative safety net. For example, an overriding set of heuri…

You mean they shouldn't have disabled the car's own autonomous, non AI braking system and kept it as a backup for when theirs failed? Yeah, but that would take a responsible, caring player and we're talking about uber here, a company built on ignoring laws, best practices, and common sense. This can easily be a case of manslaughter, but their cozy relationship with the az government will probably prevent that from ha…

> You mean they shouldn't have disabled the car's own autonomous, non AI braking system and kept it as a backup for when theirs failed?

I admit that was a thought, but I'd hold back from to saying that simple specific thing was the missed item, or even if that was a realistic expectation to maintain that setup. Without a built up safety culture that looks at the issue from multiple directions in detail, and has the authority to halt testing if needed, then it could have easily been something else. And there are multiple industries from civil/military aviation, medical, architecture, as well as many industrial occupations from which one could have formed a safety framework upon.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#202

Post by _greim_ » Mon, May 07, 2018, 11:28 PM UTC

matte_black wrote: post #198

uptown wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NPR had a story about how self-driving cars in Pittsburgh wouldn't be adhering to the "Pittsburgh-left": "Even harder for autonomous cars to master are local quirks; things like "the Pittsburgh left." That's a custom unique to the city that allows the first driver trying to make a left turn to do so before oncoming cars pass through an intersection. It's one thing that Emily Duff Bartel says Uber's fleet of self-driv…

Is this the same as pulling straight into the middle of the intersection with live traffic swirling around you on both sides then making the left after the lights have reddened and traffic has cleared?

It sounds similar. I stopped doing it years ago after seeing too many close calls. But I live in an area where other people don't exactly accommodate the behavior.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#203

Post by cli » Mon, May 07, 2018, 11:29 PM UTC

hazardmat wrote: post #137

jakelazaroff wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was a bad call on the part of the police. You're only allowed to drive as fast as conditions permit. If it's dark enough that you can't avoid an obstacle by the time your headlights illuminate it, you need to slow down .

That's not really true. Thousands of deer get killed on the road every year, because deer aren't smart enough not to be an obstacle when it's dark. Do we therefore change all the speed limits at night? No. It's a driving risk taken, just like any other.

In British Columbia, the speed limit is defined as the maximum speed limit when the road is bare and dry and visibility is good. From the driver's guidebook[1]: >Aim for a speed that’s appropriate for the conditions in which you are driving. The posted speed is the maximum for ideal conditions only. Choose a slower speed if the conditions are not ideal — for instance, if the roads are slippery or visibility is limited.

If a driver was driving too fast to react and stop without hitting that deer, then that driver was driving too quickly.

[1] http://www.icbc.com/driver-licensing/driving-guides/Pages/Le...

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#204

Post by maxsilver » Mon, May 07, 2018, 11:31 PM UTC

matte_black wrote: post #198

uptown wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NPR had a story about how self-driving cars in Pittsburgh wouldn't be adhering to the "Pittsburgh-left": "Even harder for autonomous cars to master are local quirks; things like "the Pittsburgh left." That's a custom unique to the city that allows the first driver trying to make a left turn to do so before oncoming cars pass through an intersection. It's one thing that Emily Duff Bartel says Uber's fleet of self-driv…

Is this the same as pulling straight into the middle of the intersection with live traffic swirling around you on both sides then making the left after the lights have reddened and traffic has cleared?

It sounds like the opposite of that -- letting the left turn car go before both sides move, rather than after both sides finish.

The behaviour you just described is what everyone does in Michigan. The Pittsburgh left sounds friendlier, but more risk prone to people who don't expect it or respect it.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#205

Post by princeb » Mon, May 07, 2018, 11:39 PM UTC

splouk wrote: post #38

joncrane wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And welcome to why self-driving cars will always be 3 years away. It's also possible that human/pedestrian behavior will adapt to the consistent behavior of driverless cars.

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

or less for increased safety:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#206

Post by flogic » Mon, May 07, 2018, 11:40 PM UTC

hazardmat wrote: post #137

jakelazaroff wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was a bad call on the part of the police. You're only allowed to drive as fast as conditions permit. If it's dark enough that you can't avoid an obstacle by the time your headlights illuminate it, you need to slow down .

That's not really true. Thousands of deer get killed on the road every year, because deer aren't smart enough not to be an obstacle when it's dark. Do we therefore change all the speed limits at night? No. It's a driving risk taken, just like any other.

That's not really what tends to happen with deer. The situation starts with them on one side of the road deciding to cross. Then the partway through they freeze. There's often not time to react. Deer are very poorly adapted to dealing with roads. They're camouflaged which makes them hard to see. And while freeze is a perfectly good strategy against wolves, it absolutely sucks against a Buick.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#207

Post by thereisnospork » Mon, May 07, 2018, 11:42 PM UTC

maxsilver wrote: post #204

matte_black wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this the same as pulling straight into the middle of the intersection with live traffic swirling around you on both sides then making the left after the lights have reddened and traffic has cleared?

It sounds like the opposite of that -- letting the left turn car go before both sides move, rather than after both sides finish. The behaviour you just described is what everyone does in Michigan. The Pittsburgh left sounds friendlier, but more risk prone to people who don't expect it or respect it.

Correct, although the creep and go after the light is also practiced. Main reason for the Pittsburgh left's popularity is that there are a number of roads in and around the city where during rush hour it's otherwise impossible to ever make a left and have no turn lane.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#208

Post by blahedo » Mon, May 07, 2018, 11:42 PM UTC

uptown wrote: post #115

freditup wrote: post #18

I'm curious what degree of "cultural context" is built into automated cars - I feel that there has to be a lot of locale-specific techniques for driving. For example, in NYC, there's nothing at all uncommon about a pedestrian beginning to cross the street in front of you and approaching the area of your lane where you will shortly be. Pedestrians typically then stop about a foot away from your lane, let you drive pas…

NPR had a story about how self-driving cars in Pittsburgh wouldn't be adhering to the "Pittsburgh-left": "Even harder for autonomous cars to master are local quirks; things like "the Pittsburgh left." That's a custom unique to the city that allows the first driver trying to make a left turn to do so before oncoming cars pass through an intersection. It's one thing that Emily Duff Bartel says Uber's fleet of self-driv…

Not unique to Pittsburgh (also prevalent in Rhode Island, among other places), but more importantly, letting the first car turn left first is useful to keeping traffic flowing on narrow roads—which, in the areas that use this tactic, rely on it. So, not following local customs is a good way to snarl traffic (since the oncoming traffic will be waiting for the car to take its turn).

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#209

Post by m3kw9 » Mon, May 07, 2018, 11:46 PM UTC

What’s worse, it saw it but misinterperated or sensors has a blind spot and missed something?

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#210

Post by vkou » Mon, May 07, 2018, 11:47 PM UTC

matte_black wrote: post #198

uptown wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NPR had a story about how self-driving cars in Pittsburgh wouldn't be adhering to the "Pittsburgh-left": "Even harder for autonomous cars to master are local quirks; things like "the Pittsburgh left." That's a custom unique to the city that allows the first driver trying to make a left turn to do so before oncoming cars pass through an intersection. It's one thing that Emily Duff Bartel says Uber's fleet of self-driv…

Is this the same as pulling straight into the middle of the intersection with live traffic swirling around you on both sides then making the left after the lights have reddened and traffic has cleared?

No, what you're describing sounds a hell of a lot safer. (It's also how people make left turns in Vancouver. The fact that it's illegal in Seattle infuriates me to no end.)

The Pittsburgh left sounds like a recipe to get T-boned by an inattentive driver. Pulling into the intersection, and making a left turn when it is safe is a much better alternative.