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

San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 504 posts

Re: San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

#21

Post by em500 »

thematrixturtle wrote: post #4
shafyy wrote: post #3

How do you pull over an autonomous car? Like, how does it know that it needs to pull over?

"We work closely with the SFPD on how to interact with our vehicles and have a dedicated phone number for them to call in situations like this.” And yes, that seems thoroughly impractical at scale.

The scalable solution would be that law enforcement will be given a direct override/pull-over button for any driverless car. I expect this to happen in the future if driverless cars reach large volumes. Maybe I haven't thought this through enough, but I can't imagine a circumstance where you would want a driverless car to be able to ignore stopping directions from law enforcement.

Re: San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

#22

Post by brigade »

makeitdouble wrote: post #11
bmitc wrote: post #2

I remain confused on how these cars are allowed on the road. Did they pass a driver's license check? Who's responsible? Who gets the ticket? In this instance, you can see that the car performed a dangerous maneuver by running from the cops, with its lights still off, and crossing an intersection, which is then spun by the company as finding a "safer" spot to pull over at. Even though, it found a spot essentially iden…

In case no one is specifically identified for the infraction, doesn't it come back to the car owner ? Not in the US, but that's how it would work here for illegal parking or if the driver fled from the cops and the car is never found for instance. Even if the owner doesn't own a driving license, that's just where the buck stops. The owner if of course free to try to shove it somewhere else, but that's on them to make…

Parking citations attach to the car (as does civil collision liability generally), but moving violations can only be levied against the driver. Which is how some red light camera fines are avoided, if the driver isn’t clearly identifiable by the camera.

Re: San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

#23

Post by markdown »

em500 wrote: post #21
thematrixturtle wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We work closely with the SFPD on how to interact with our vehicles and have a dedicated phone number for them to call in situations like this.” And yes, that seems thoroughly impractical at scale.

The scalable solution would be that law enforcement will be given a direct override/pull-over button for any driverless car. I expect this to happen in the future if driverless cars reach large volumes. Maybe I haven't thought this through enough, but I can't imagine a circumstance where you would want a driverless car to be able to ignore stopping directions from law enforcement.

> I can't imagine a circumstance where you would want a driverless car to be able to ignore stopping directions from law enforcement.

Funny, I can't imagine a circumstance where I would want "law enforcement" to be able to override my directions and take control of my car.

Re: San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

#25

Post by cdot2 »

mobilio wrote: post #20
cdot2 wrote: post #17

"Cruise vehicles are only authorized to drive from 10PM to 6AM, which obviously makes headlights pretty important." So why rely on the automatic headlights at all? Why not just set the headlights on manually?

In EU there is a law that you should drive with headlight all time. Old cars drive with low beam, new cars comes with daytime running lights (DRLs). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daytime_running_lamp#European_...

The US has this law for motorcycles. Maybe we should apply it to driverless cars as well

Re: San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

#26

Post by cdot2 »

surgi wrote: post #15

I find the explanation offered by Cruise amusing: the car supposedly "figured out" that it is in a dangerous spot to be pulled over and "tried to move to a better one" (extremely complex behavior), while the actual reason for the car being pulled over was not having its headlights on (seemingly a relatively simple bug).

If a person did this they'd probably be in some serious trouble

Re: San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

#27

Post by Symbiote »

mobilio wrote: post #20
cdot2 wrote: post #17

"Cruise vehicles are only authorized to drive from 10PM to 6AM, which obviously makes headlights pretty important." So why rely on the automatic headlights at all? Why not just set the headlights on manually?

In EU there is a law that you should drive with headlight all time. Old cars drive with low beam, new cars comes with daytime running lights (DRLs). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daytime_running_lamp#European_...

No, as you have cited, there is a law saying vehicles must be equipped with these lights, but it's up to national regulations on when they must be used.

See https://trip.studentnews.eu/s/4086/77033-Car-travel-in-Europ... for a list (incomplete, Denmark requires daytime lights.)

Re: San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

#28

Post by gambiting »

brigade wrote: post #22
makeitdouble wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case no one is specifically identified for the infraction, doesn't it come back to the car owner ? Not in the US, but that's how it would work here for illegal parking or if the driver fled from the cops and the car is never found for instance. Even if the owner doesn't own a driving license, that's just where the buck stops. The owner if of course free to try to shove it somewhere else, but that's on them to make…

Parking citations attach to the car (as does civil collision liability generally), but moving violations can only be levied against the driver. Which is how some red light camera fines are avoided, if the driver isn’t clearly identifiable by the camera.

Here in UK it's always the owner of the car who is responsible, unless they can say who was driving the car at the time. If they can't then the fine defaults to them - the assumption being that they are responsible for knowing who is using their vehicle.

In other countries with similar laws(Poland) it has been argued in front of court that it cannot be the owner's responsibility to know who is driving their car at any given point especially if there are multiple people who do that usually - it should be the police's job to establish who they are fining.

Re: San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

#29

Post by barry-cotter »

em500 wrote: post #21
thematrixturtle wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We work closely with the SFPD on how to interact with our vehicles and have a dedicated phone number for them to call in situations like this.” And yes, that seems thoroughly impractical at scale.

The scalable solution would be that law enforcement will be given a direct override/pull-over button for any driverless car. I expect this to happen in the future if driverless cars reach large volumes. Maybe I haven't thought this through enough, but I can't imagine a circumstance where you would want a driverless car to be able to ignore stopping directions from law enforcement.

Wouldn’t it be great to give the government the power to cause a traffic accident for anyone they didn’t like?

Re: San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

#30

Post by shubb »

markdown wrote: post #23
em500 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scalable solution would be that law enforcement will be given a direct override/pull-over button for any driverless car. I expect this to happen in the future if driverless cars reach large volumes. Maybe I haven't thought this through enough, but I can't imagine a circumstance where you would want a driverless car to be able to ignore stopping directions from law enforcement.

> I can't imagine a circumstance where you would want a driverless car to be able to ignore stopping directions from law enforcement. Funny, I can't imagine a circumstance where I would want "law enforcement" to be able to override my directions and take control of my car.

Do you want number plates?

Mine have never helped me get anything except for parking fines, but lawmakers decided being able to visually and uniquely identify a car for the purposes of law enforcement was more important than my privacy because it enabled widespread use of this dangerous and strictly regulated machinery.

You can own a car without number plates, you just can't drive it on a public road. Presumably similar with this hypothetical kill switch. Requiring compliance with rules for access to a shared resource doesn't seem that ethically challenging when you think about it.

Post reply on HN