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

61–70 of 504 posts

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

#61

Post by ajsnigrutin »

unnah wrote: post #52
cdot2 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes, every self-driving car should have a row of LED lights at the front. Also, they should indicate that the AI is actively scanning its environment by switching the LEDs on and off in a regular left-to-right pattern.

And those lights should be in a vertical row of 8 red lights, going left-to right.

And when the car speaks to the driver and the surroundings, there should be three vertical bar graphs made of red leds to indicate the speech.

There is a good controller for those kinds of lights, named "knight industry two thousand", but i think there is and upgrade to 'three tousand' available too.

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

#62

Post by alisonkisk »

DennisP wrote: post #58
cdot2 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not necessarily, if you make your intentions clear, e.g. by slowing down and putting your hazards on.

No post body was provided.

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

#63

Post by alisonkisk »

logifail wrote: post #34
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…

> Did they pass a driver's license check? Thought experiment: imagine a particular self-driving algo were to do something that would warrant a human driver getting their driving licence suspended, would that mean all the cars with that same algo would be simultanously suspended, or just that one car?

No post body was provided.

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

#64

Post by dghughes »

sandworm101 wrote: post #50
howunpleasant wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Did they pass a driver's license check? No > Who's responsible? Cruise and their insurance

Insurance doesnt pay for crimes. You cannot buy "speeding insurance" to pay your traffic tickets anymore than you can hire someone else to go to jail for you.

>"...anymore than you can hire someone else to go to jail for you." *

* unless you're rich

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

#65

Post by sseagull »

DennisP wrote: post #58
cdot2 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not necessarily, if you make your intentions clear, e.g. by slowing down and putting your hazards on.

Well, most of the time. If the cop feels like it, they can make you have a very bad time.

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/7645474002

“An Arkansas woman says she had no safe place to pull over in July 2020 when a state trooper tried to stop her for speeding, so she turned on her hazard lights and slowed down. Moments later, the officer rammed her vehicle, causing it to flip over and injuring the woman”

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

#66

Post by kevingadd »

sandworm101 wrote: post #50
howunpleasant wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Did they pass a driver's license check? No > Who's responsible? Cruise and their insurance

Insurance doesnt pay for crimes. You cannot buy "speeding insurance" to pay your traffic tickets anymore than you can hire someone else to go to jail for you.

The company probably has various kinds of liability insurance that would cover things like lawyer's fees

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

#67

Post by nullc »

cdot2 wrote: post #26
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

No post body was provided.

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

#68

Post by gregoriol »

ulimn wrote: post #16
thematrixturtle wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can a passenger force a fully autonomous taxi to pull over? And what happens when the passenger is in the driver's seat and the police think they are resisting orders?

I would be certainly terrified if the car didn't pull over and I would see cops chasing me. And all I could do was watch.

Next thing you hear is shots and glass breaking sounds. Not sure you hear much more though.

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

#69

Post by mobilio »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #51
mobilio wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nordic countries are different because even their "days" they sun can be seen 2-3-4 hours.

unless it's summer in which case it can be seen about 19 hours.

But even on 19 hours day it's good with daylights.

It's easier to see what vehicle is running/driving or not.

Post reply on HN