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

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#411

Post by vkou » Tue, May 08, 2018, 5:32 PM UTC

cge wrote: post #325

bdhess wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your first point is not true, at least not where I live. It is legal to enter an intersection to prepare to make a left turn before oncoming traffic has cleared. This very scenario is spelled out in the NYS drivers manual— see the second example under “right of way”. [0] [0] https://dmv.ny.gov/about-dmv/chapter-5-intersections-and-tur...

At least in Los Angeles, this is not only legal but, in many cases, the only legal way to make a left turn.

It may be legal in LA or NY, but in Washington, it is not legal.

> RCW 46.61.202 says "no driver shall enter an intersection or a marked crosswalk or drive onto any railroad grade crossing unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection, crosswalk, or railroad grade crossing to accommodate the vehicle he or she is operating without obstructing the passage of other vehicles..."

Some people bring out the following passage to be in conflict with it, but I strongly disagree.

> RCW 46.61.190, which says drivers must stop at a marked stop line or "at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway before entering the roadway, and after having stopped shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard..."

The 'intersecting roadway' obviously refers to the crossing street, not the lane you want to turn into. Therefore, if you can see oncoming traffic without pulling into the intersection, then crossing past the white line, and waiting there is illegal.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#412

Post by jschwartzi » Tue, May 08, 2018, 6:28 PM UTC

nmca wrote: post #394

mannykannot wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even with the red herring about the safety overrides being a black box, yes, it would be satisfactory - see my other post. Not only would the triggering of the safety override generally indicate a failure of the autonomous system, the use of failsafe overrides to catch corner cases should be a feature of the final system. If Uber could demonstrate, through the analysis of a statistically significant number of events,…

Replying to your other comment here as well - the inclusion of conceptually simple safety mechanisms is important (eg I agree), as is the broader scheme of including both hardware and algorithmic redundancy to improve safety. I also agree that "live" initial testing of such safeguards is inappropriate, and as above Uber clearly failed to do appropriate testing. However you describe the (potential) black box nature of…

It's perfectly appropriate when both systems are intended to enhance safety. It does not matter how the internals work, just that the system enhances the safety of your solution. It could be a webcam beaming images back to a bunch of Mechanical Turk operators and it wouldn't matter as long as it was proven to work.

It's not like Software of Unknown Provenance where it's running in the same execution environment and you don't have any control. This was a completely separate system with independent sensors that was marketed to stop the car in the exact situation the car failed to stop in. Disabling it was foolhardy.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#413

Post by mannykannot » Tue, May 08, 2018, 6:43 PM UTC

nmca wrote: post #394

mannykannot wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even with the red herring about the safety overrides being a black box, yes, it would be satisfactory - see my other post. Not only would the triggering of the safety override generally indicate a failure of the autonomous system, the use of failsafe overrides to catch corner cases should be a feature of the final system. If Uber could demonstrate, through the analysis of a statistically significant number of events,…

Replying to your other comment here as well - the inclusion of conceptually simple safety mechanisms is important (eg I agree), as is the broader scheme of including both hardware and algorithmic redundancy to improve safety. I also agree that "live" initial testing of such safeguards is inappropriate, and as above Uber clearly failed to do appropriate testing. However you describe the (potential) black box nature of…

It is a red herring because:

Firstly, it assumes Volvo is not sharing the parameters of the system. It seems unlikely that Uber is installing an automated driving system into these cars without the cooperation of Volvo, especially with the agreement to ultimately get 24,000 autonomous-system-equipped cars from them.

Secondly, if Uber could instead determine what it wants to know about the parameters by testing, then the question is irrelevant, as are the semantics.

Thirdly, it is presumably safe for humans to be driving cars without knowing the exact parameters, and so should not present any particular problem for the autonomous system - if the emergency brakes are triggered, it is likely to be a situation in which it is the right thing to happen, and possibly a result of the autonomous system failing. Just as for human drivers, an autonomous system is expected to usually stay within the parameters of the emergency system, without reference to those parameters, just by driving correctly. For example, if the emergency brakes come on to stop the car from hitting a pedestrian because the autonomous system failed to correctly identify the danger, what difference would it have made if the system knew the exact parameters of the emergency braking system?

Lastly, the road is an environment with a lot of uncertainty and unpredictability. If the system is so fragile that the tiny amount of uncertainty of not knowing the exact parameters of the automatic braking system raises safety concerns, then it is nowhere near being a system with the flexibility to drive safely.

It is possible that a competent autonomous driving system might supplant the current emergency braking system, in which case the way to proceed is to demonstrate it in the way I outlined in the last paragraph of my previous post.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#414

Post by bdhess » Tue, May 08, 2018, 6:44 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #411

cge wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in Los Angeles, this is not only legal but, in many cases, the only legal way to make a left turn.

It may be legal in LA or NY, but in Washington, it is not legal. > RCW 46.61.202 says "no driver shall enter an intersection or a marked crosswalk or drive onto any railroad grade crossing unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection, crosswalk, or railroad grade crossing to accommodate the vehicle he or she is operating without obstructing the passage of other vehicles..." Some people bring…

IANAL, but by a plain language reading, entering the intersection to prepare to turn left is not in conflict with the first point, so long as the destination roadway is clear.

The second point is irrelevant, as it pertains to stop/yield intersections, which are not being discussed here.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#415

Post by hazardmat » Tue, May 08, 2018, 7:02 PM UTC

davidgould wrote: post #316

hazardmat wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Possibly. But a distracted driver is definitely at fault, no matter what. Both parties are at fault, I'm not denying that. That's not the point. >> Pretty good. Most people are honest, even in a bad situation. What gives you that idea? People are dishonest all the time, especially to themselves. It's a basic coping strategy. >> Well, you probably have your reasons for writing this under a novelty account. Yes, it'…

> That's cute and all, it's just not how human psychology works. There are endless examples of this, from the pettiest thieves to the biggest mass murderers. This argument fails on both moral and statistical grounds: most people are not petty thieves or mass murderers nor should we accept that "getting away with it" is an acceptable basis for human behavior.

I'm making a prediction on what's likely to happen based on well-researched human psychology. Again, the keyword is "cognitive dissonance". It encompasses all aspects of human life, the petty theft is just an example.

The moral dimension to this is entirely besides the point, the fact that you even bring it up tells me you are probably "suffering" from what is called a "Moralistic Fallacy".

I'm not making a moral argument or judgment here, but there's certainly the related question of whether someone who believes their own lies is truly a liar.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#416

Post by hazardmat » Tue, May 08, 2018, 7:06 PM UTC

romwell wrote: post #297

hazardmat wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is that supposed to mean ? What's prudent and what is safe? The reality is that driving at night isn't safe at all and that people often can't avoid collision from an obstacle suddenly appearing at night. Maybe if they drove at 15MPH at all times, it would be possible in 99% of cases, but in practice we don't expect that . Hence, we have collisions. Not because the drivers are always guilty of recklessness, but…

>The reality is that driving at night isn't safe at all Where did you learn that ? Sources, please! Because the reality as I know it disagrees with this claim.

https://seriousaccidents.com/legal-advice/top-causes-of-car-...

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#417

Post by hazardmat » Tue, May 08, 2018, 7:10 PM UTC

FireBeyond wrote: post #265

hazardmat wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, in this scenario, the woman would have at least shared some of the blame. Second of all, what are the odds that a human who just killed a woman would admit even to themselves that they were the one to blame in such an accident? Practically zero. Cognitive dissonance won't allow it. In their minds, they weren't distracted, at least not enough to take any of the blame.

> Second of all, what are the odds that a human who just killed a woman would admit even to themselves that they were the one to blame in such an accident? Practically zero. As a paramedic who sees fatality accidents? Hardly. "Oh my god, I've killed someone!" is a fairly common statement, or paraphrasing.

"Oh my god, I accidentally killed someone" is something quite different from "Oh my god, my willful negligence alone has caused a fatality and I'm ready to take full responsibility".

While not entirely impossible that the latter happens, it's highly unlikely. What's much more likely is that these people are saying this because they want to hear "Oh, but it's not your fault" from somebody else.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#418

Post by nmca » Tue, May 08, 2018, 7:25 PM UTC

mannykannot wrote: post #413

nmca wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Replying to your other comment here as well - the inclusion of conceptually simple safety mechanisms is important (eg I agree), as is the broader scheme of including both hardware and algorithmic redundancy to improve safety. I also agree that "live" initial testing of such safeguards is inappropriate, and as above Uber clearly failed to do appropriate testing. However you describe the (potential) black box nature of…

It is a red herring because: Firstly, it assumes Volvo is not sharing the parameters of the system. It seems unlikely that Uber is installing an automated driving system into these cars without the cooperation of Volvo, especially with the agreement to ultimately get 24,000 autonomous-system-equipped cars from them. Secondly, if Uber could instead determine what it wants to know about the parameters by testing, then…

Thanks for answering in so much detail - I think the last two points make a compelling case for not disabling the system, even in the true black box case, and the first two are very compelling in the real world, even if they don't apply to the thought experiment of an actual black box. You've broadly changed my mind on this issue :)

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#419

Post by mannykannot » Tue, May 08, 2018, 7:56 PM UTC

nmca wrote: post #418

mannykannot wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a red herring because: Firstly, it assumes Volvo is not sharing the parameters of the system. It seems unlikely that Uber is installing an automated driving system into these cars without the cooperation of Volvo, especially with the agreement to ultimately get 24,000 autonomous-system-equipped cars from them. Secondly, if Uber could instead determine what it wants to know about the parameters by testing, then…

Thanks for answering in so much detail - I think the last two points make a compelling case for not disabling the system, even in the true black box case, and the first two are very compelling in the real world, even if they don't apply to the thought experiment of an actual black box. You've broadly changed my mind on this issue :)

I should have said that your concern is valid where two systems might issue conflicting commands that could create a dangerous situation, it is just that I don't see it likely in this particular combination of systems.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#420

Post by romwell » Tue, May 08, 2018, 8:15 PM UTC

lhorie wrote: post #312

romwell wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's much more plausible that the dashcam dynamic range was in fact crap and that the police officers at the scene were smart enough to figure out to just pop off the SD card off the dashcam. ..and Uber's lawyers figured that most people have no idea what "dynamic range" is and will eat up "it was dark" as a legitimate excuse for this manslaughter. There likely was no need to manipulate that video. It was still quit…

> Most people don't really know better. Well, if this thread is any indication, people seem to always be confusing the roles and actions of lawyers, PR and the police to fit some bizarre conspiracy theory. The fact is that the dashcam video was released by police, and Uber admitted to being at fault with this latest statement. I honestly don't get why you're talking about lawyers now.

I talked about "lawyers" because I don't know which part of Uber is responsible for damage control and would carefully vet all public statements in such scenarios. I assume it's the legal dept. because that's my understanding of procedures in the place I worked at.

The facts are that:

1. The dashcam video is highly misleading, as many people assumed that the accident would have been hard for a human to avoid based on the video. See threads like [1] - please read the top comment there.

2. The police released a misleading statement, echoing the same sentiment - that the accident was hard to avoid.

3. Uber sat silent for 50 days - long enough for people to stop caring - before admitting fault.

There is no conspiracy here. The actions of the police department have misled the public in Uber's favor (yes, we can assume incompetence as the reason), and Uber used this to their advantage by keeping silent for two months (as any company likely would). This is expected.

What I don't expect is the public cutting Uber any slack in this scenario.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/uberdrivers/comments/866xmv/video_f...