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

421–430 of 445 posts

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#421

Post by Aspyre »

bkor wrote: post #362
throwaway057 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I drive that stretch of road almost every single day, at night. Yeah, the video looked different than what my eyes see because my eyes have better low light sensitivity than most cameras. However (if this makes sense): the video released was an accurate representation of what you see driving on that road. A few weeks ago, I had somebody almost walk into my car out of the shadows (this person was paying attention thou…

> However (if this makes sense): the video released was an accurate representation of what you see driving on that road. There have been many videos on that same road which were super clear. Only the Uber video was really dark. The other videos weren't. Further, darkness doesn't impact LIDAR.

If you want to compare conditions, were any of those videos taken without moon light? How do we know the city didn't increase the street lighting following the incident?

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#422

Post by romwell »

hazardmat wrote: post #416
romwell wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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-...

Good start, but that doesn't say that night driving isn't safe. It says that most accidents happen at night. Accidents are rare.

The page also lists drunk and drowsy driving as one of the major reasons why night driving is less safe. These are correlated risk factors, but neither has to do with the conditions being inherently unsafe.

The page doesn't talk about the extent to which drunk and drowsy drivers account for nights being dangerous.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#423

Post by jakelazaroff »

hazardmat wrote: post #416
romwell wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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-...

And lo, that source's number one safety tip for night driving:

> 1. Allow for enough distance to stop. We recommend that you gauge this distance using your headlights. Low beams should allow you to see up to 160 feet away, while high beams should illuminate about 500 feet in front of you. Make sure that, if and when you must brake hard, that you can brake within those distances.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#424

Post by lhorie »

romwell wrote: post #420
lhorie wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> which part of Uber is responsible for damage control

Damage control typically falls in the realm of public relations, not legal. Legal can help inform PR on what to say, but then again, so can any other relevant department, including engineering.

> Uber sat silent for 50 days

I was under the impression this was by request from NTSB. I mean, even your own criticism is that the dashcam video being released prematurely caused the public at large to reach inaccurate conclusions. Investigations take time. We can't have the cake and eat it too.

BTW, the comment you linked to seems pretty representative of the general response to the video: "yes it looks dark, but Lidar should've seen her"

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#425

Post by hazardmat »

romwell wrote: post #422
hazardmat wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Good start, but that doesn't say that night driving isn't safe . It says that most accidents happen at night. Accidents are rare. The page also lists drunk and drowsy driving as one of the major reasons why night driving is less safe. These are correlated risk factors, but neither has to do with the conditions being inherently unsafe. The page doesn't talk about the extent to which drunk and drowsy drivers account fo…

>> Good start, but that doesn't say that night driving isn't safe.

It also doesn't say that it is safe. It lists all kind of risks that make it unsafe in one way or another. Whose definition of "safe" are we supposed to go by, anyway?

We can probably at least agree on what isn't safe: Crossing a road at night into incoming traffic, as a pedestrian.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#426

Post by hazardmat »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #423
hazardmat wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And lo, that source's number one safety tip for night driving: > 1. Allow for enough distance to stop. We recommend that you gauge this distance using your headlights. Low beams should allow you to see up to 160 feet away, while high beams should illuminate about 500 feet in front of you. Make sure that, if and when you must brake hard, that you can brake within those distances.

And what a great tip it is! "Drive so that if you need to brake, you don't collide". No shit, Sherlock.

In other words, people just need to always drive far slower than what everyone believes they can handle in a situation that they aren't trained for, and everything will be fine. Everyone who collides anyway is just reckless and stupid!

Now please excuse me, I have exhausted my sarcasm budget for today.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#427

Post by Piskvorrr »

Johnny555 wrote: post #91
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Oh, you mean like the "too-dark-to-see" scapegoat camera in that very case the article is about? Riiiiight.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#428

Post by Piskvorrr »

Symmetry wrote: post #56
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…

I think you're overselling the extent of the difficulty here. People from out of state usually manage to get through New York, pedestrians and all, without getting into an accident. A car won't get through a block as quickly as it could if it merely obeys the laws makes sure it doesn't run into anybody. I'm sure this will cause great joy among people crossing the street and consternation among other drivers but the p…

Works for one SDV in a stream of human-driven cars. Doesn't scale well.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#429

Post by Piskvorrr »

c22 wrote: post #303
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.

A massive enough influx of self-driving cars all driving with the same profile is perhaps one of the few ways reality could be coaxed into this particular ideal.

Nothing could possibly go wrong there. /s

In other words, you're assuming a massive (no, even "10 000 cars" is not "massive"), coordinated, correct deployment. I'd like a pony and world peace while we're in fantasyland.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#430

Post by Piskvorrr »

hmschreck wrote: post #73
kbutler wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5 9s sounds impressive, until you think that's 1 failure per 100,000 interactions. There are individual intersections in the US that have that many vehicles pass each day. I haven't seen estimates on number of specifically vehicle-pedestrian interactions, but 5 9s is nowhere nearly safe enough.

How many times does a car see this particular interaction, though?

That's also a factor. I've been driving for decades now, yet still need to handle surprisingly novel situations now and then.
Post reply on HN