Live data from Hacker News

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

theverge.com

101–110 of 504 posts

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

#101
post #72

I am really worried by the fact that I am the unwilling tester in the Great Driverless Car Experiment. Tradition has it that when you load-test a new bridge, you put the architect underneath. I feel like this, except I didn't design those driverless cars, somebody else did. Being an experienced software engineer, my trust in the software in these cars is pretty low. And yet they are testing them on me, because I can…

We are all unwilling testers of every new teenage driver who hits the road.

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

#103
post #72

I am really worried by the fact that I am the unwilling tester in the Great Driverless Car Experiment. Tradition has it that when you load-test a new bridge, you put the architect underneath. I feel like this, except I didn't design those driverless cars, somebody else did. Being an experienced software engineer, my trust in the software in these cars is pretty low. And yet they are testing them on me, because I can…

> I am really worried by the fact that I am the unwilling tester in the Great Driverless Car Experiment.

You’re basically an non-consenting tester for every piece of innovation that society every has/ever will come up with, in one way or another. It’s an unavoidable feature of living on the same planet as 8 billion other people. Perhaps the safety of this technology does need to improve, or perhaps not. But there’s no level of improvement that would ever be able to satisfy this outrage you’ve expressed at something new existing in the same place as you.

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

#105
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the software "that did the crime" is all the same..

Yes, and that's why suspending the one car might seem counterintuitive. But that doesn't mean it's a bad solution.

Can we have lawn darts back if we suspend the darts that maim or kill?

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

#106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could say the same for regular cars when they first arrived on the road. Saying there should be a higher bar is useless unless you are able to say exactly what that bar should be.

People did say exactly the same for regular cars. The result was a massive advertising campaign to establish the concept of jaywalking, and to make the street the sole domain of the car. I can easily imagine a similar campaign to label pedestrians as irresponsible for walking outside without an ultrasonic emitter, or a lidar reflector, or whatever integrates with the self-driving system. Whatever shifts the responsib…

You say "advertising campaign" as if it were some conspiracy by the world's big auto manufacturers

1. Do you have any sources?

2. You don't think that roads should be a car only domain? What do you think roads are for?

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

#107
post #72

I am really worried by the fact that I am the unwilling tester in the Great Driverless Car Experiment. Tradition has it that when you load-test a new bridge, you put the architect underneath. I feel like this, except I didn't design those driverless cars, somebody else did. Being an experienced software engineer, my trust in the software in these cars is pretty low. And yet they are testing them on me, because I can…

You could say the same for regular cars when they first arrived on the road. Saying there should be a higher bar is useless unless you are able to say exactly what that bar should be.

Let's start with setting the bar at "the driverless car only operating at night should have its lights on". And since Cruise so effortlessly limbod right under that one, we should probably ask for a root-cause analysis here and stop their operation immediately until then. God forbid they start disabling the brakes like Uber "because they cause disengagements".

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

#108
post #58
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.

Depends on your skin color

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

#109

Being used to riding motorcycles in the US, why are headlights not always on for all vehicles at this point? LED bulbs last a very long time and there is little reason to not have them on during the day. I know, it’s much more fun to anthropomorphize the car in this case, but the simple solution is to just hard wire them.

[deleted]

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

#110
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).

Why amusing? Sounds about right from what I know about Cruise cars. (Source/disclaimer: I worked at Cruise many moons ago.)
Post reply on HN