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

441–450 of 504 posts

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

#441

Post by nitwit005 »

olyjohn wrote: post #426
jklinger410 wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The difference is that airplane software standards are by far the most rigorous in the world and so rigorous that most software developers are shocked at the level of rigor employed... You mean the standards set by the FAA, which regularly defers to the private industry to regulate itself, due to complexity that it can't afford to keep up with? Those standards?

Flying is still the safest way to travel. So I'm not sure what you're complaining about with the FAA.

The crashes revealed the FAA wasn't doing the job people thought they were. We achieved safety in this case by grounding all of the planes after crashes, which is hardly the ideal method.

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

#442

Post by Animats »

Cruise Automation has a terrible video for first responders.[1] The dialog sounds like it was written by lawyers.

Summary:

- Vehicles recognize lights and sirens and will pull over.

- Call Cruise's control center at 888-662-7103 in case of trouble with a vehicle. The control center needs the name of the vehicle, which is painted on the car in 3 places. Or at least the location.

- Chocking and blocking the wheels, as firefighters routinely do, is safe.

- Other emergency procedures are the same as for a regular Chevy Bolt.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM3kfauMgZY

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

#443

Post by tomjakubowski »

njarboe wrote: post #337
kylecordes wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if cars were invented today. The bar would be much higher, probably halfway to how pilot licensing works. (Of course this had some substantial downsides.)

If cars were invented today, they would be too dangerous to be allowed to exist. Almost nothing has been invented since 1970 that can cause any harm. Safety first and all that.

Personal computers cause all kinds of harm (in addition to the benefits).

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

#444

Post by bmitc »

ShakataGaNai wrote: post #340
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? Yes. That would be the AV permit that the cars operate under. Also as they are programmed to obey all road laws, it's exceedingly unlikely they will cause any moving infractions. > Who's responsible? Who gets the ticket? Cruise. Their name is on the AV permit, it's their insurance. > spot essentially identical to where it was. Before it was in a lane of traffic next to a park…

Where do I apply for a permit to reassign culpability for my driving to a corporation?

> At the end of the day the argument is that these cars are safer than the average driver.

The last data I saw said otherwise, and that data was primarily collected in ideal conditions. That has been a few years, but these companies are not forthcoming with their data.

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

#445

Post by asveikau »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #352
jonny_eh wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're quoting the Unabomber now? Certainly you can choose good quotes from non-serial killers.

Why not? It is a good and relevant point.

As someone who likes to walk in an urban environment, I'd say it's not good and relevant. It's rather detached from the actual experience of the urban walker.

There's simple road design concepts that mitigate danger, as well.

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

#446

Post by bmitc »

eru wrote: post #175
sjmulder wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What worries me a little bit is how this can shift blame further on other (more vulnerable) road users once such vehicles become more common, solidifying even stronger the notion that roads are for motor vehicles and for motor vehicles alone.

I'd say actually less so. As a pedestrian I'd be much more confident stepping in front of a self-driving car, than stepping in front of a human-driven car. So much so, that I've read about people's fears that self-driving cars will be subject to bullying by pedestrians (and other drivers).

> As a pedestrian I'd be much more confident stepping in front of a self-driving car, than stepping in front of a human-driven car.

Why?

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

#447

Post by bhelkey »

Archelaos wrote: post #111
sseagull wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”

In my country this would be an illegal disproportionate action. Did the state trooper get away with this? If not, wouldn't it be time to change the law?

> Did the state trooper get away with this?

Yes, he did [1].

> If not, wouldn't it be time to change the law?

'The [Arkansas State Police], as part of the settlement agreement, has agreed to change its Use of Force policy as it relates to PIT maneuvers and institute an “objective standard” required to justify the maneuver’s use versus the previous “subjective standard.”'[1].

I would argue that a more across the board set of changes is required.

[1] https://www.kark.com/news/working4you/arkansas-state-police-...

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

#448

Post by MereInterest »

MathCodeLove wrote: post #159
MereInterest wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For 1, this is well established history that I didn't feel was necessary to provide sources for. That said, the vox article linked to by jeromegv does a good job of describing the transition. For 2, I'd make a distinction between paths built for long-distance travel (roads) and paths built for connecting to destinations (streets). The two have fundamentally different goals that cannot be safely achieved at the same t…

1. Fair enough, but sources should almost always be provided. I hadn't heard that particular piece of historical trivia and I don't think it's necessarily common knowledge. As for the later, why is that any better than just sidewalks and crosswalks, which the majority of areas with heavy pedestrian traffic already have? It'd be incredibly eco-unfriendly, expensive, and impractical to have two different types of roads…

I do provide sources when something is difficult to find, uncommon, or uses numeric values beyond ballpark estimations. Demanding sources for every statement contributes to Brandolini's Law [0], which states "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than is needed to produce it." In the spirit of restoring symmetry, I invite you to provide sources for the following statements made in this thread.

* "Most areas with heavy pedestrian traffic have sidewalks." I am uncertain on this one, as heavy pedestrian traffic is more frequent on mixed-use streets. Sidewalks are only used in places with car-centric design, which discourages walking.

* "Even with cars taking up much more space, a bunch of cars traveling at 25 mph are able to carry a many more people through a distance X in a period of time T than the equivalent walking would be able to." I am uncertain on this, because cars require very large amounts of space both for the physical size of the car, the spacing between cars, and the spacing between groups of cars at an intersection.

* "It'd be incredibly eco-unfriendly, expensive, and impractical to have two different types of roads" I'd be interested in a source for this, as I've generally heard that separating out usage improves the efficiency of each. Cars go faster because there are fewer stops requires. Pedestrians die less often because there are fewer cars nearby.

* "Bike lanes are less common than sidewalks" This is correct by my experience, but I've only lived in places with car-centric city planning. Can you provide a source?

I'm interested in continuing this conversation, but not if it is a conversation between sourced comments and unsourced assertions.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law

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

#449

Post by s1artibartfast »

asveikau wrote: post #445
s1artibartfast wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? It is a good and relevant point.

As someone who likes to walk in an urban environment, I'd say it's not good and relevant. It's rather detached from the actual experience of the urban walker. There's simple road design concepts that mitigate danger, as well.

The point is simply that that one person's choice can have impact on others. This is pretty basic and true if you like like urban walking or not.

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

#450

Post by s1artibartfast »

jonny_eh wrote: post #430
colinmhayes wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think his murders invalidate his manifesto. Luditeism has been very popular since the industrial revolution, I think it's reasonably likely we would be talking about Industrial Society and its Future or something similar if he hadn't killed people.

> I don't think his murders invalidate his manifesto That's not my point though, my point is that quoting his manifesto validates his violence. If his ideas are valid, there should be other sources to quote/promote.

>If his ideas are valid, there should be other sources to quote/promote.

Why is that so sure? Do you have an equivalent quote to substitute?

Post reply on HN