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

461–470 of 504 posts

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

#461

Post by kadoban »

standardUser wrote: post #387
kadoban wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That teenage driver goes through a training and certification process, and we have ways of stopping them from driving if they fuck up too badly. They also have liability for their actions. Most of those are lacking or at least inconsistent, for AI driving.

"That teenage driver goes through a training and certification process" Did anyone else spit out their morning coffee at this hilarious one-liner?

Feel free to argue that licensing isn't strict enough. I'd agree. But AI driver certification is effectively nonexistent, judging by Telsa's bullshit behavior.

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

#462

Post by root_axis »

dfxm12 wrote: post #440
root_axis wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we can give people realistic alternatives to drunk driving to prevent it in the first place Such as?

Off the top of my head, public transportation, ride sharing, making streets more pedestrian friendly, denser zoning. I had a great bar that was less than a mile from where I used to live. I rarely went because there was no way to walk there. No sidewalks in the neighborhood, no traffic lights, no bus that stopped near it. It's a shame. It closed shortly after I moved away after away. In the paper they said they just…

> public transportation

A great idea that I am in support of, but it's not a "realistic alternative", public transportation is politically fraught, expensive, and slow to build in the U.S. I'm not saying we shouldn't continue to strive towards it, but it's not happening any time soon in the U.S.

> ride sharing

This is the status quo.

> making streets more pedestrian friendly

Same issue as public transportation - slow, expensive, politically fraught, but also of dubious ROI in terms of preventing DUIs; nobody is going to walk 5 miles home from the bar because of streets that are friendlier to pedestrians. Of course, there are other worthy reasons to create pedestrian friendly streets, but they don't really represent a realistic alternative to someone prone to intoxicated driving.

> denser zoning

Again, not really a realistic alternative, zoning issues are politically and economically contentious at a level that transcends concerns about drunk driving and yet the needle on that issue barley moves due to NIMBYism and entrenched special interests.

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

#463

Post by m463 »

IgorPartola wrote: post #88

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.

What I find annoying is the people whose cars DO have headlights that are automatically "on", yet all the OTHER lighst on the car are off.

It's common to come across one of these cars at night from behind - no visible tail lights, but when you pull up next to them, their headlights are on, yet dim (daytime running lights?).

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

#464

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

jklinger410 wrote: post #456
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm lost by your comment. It seems that you're trying to suggest either 1) that the standards as mentioned necessarily aren't True Standards - as a blanket statement - because they're set by the industry or 2) that these standards aren't True Standards - specific to this particular discussion - because there is no reason to think they're necessarily more rigorous than the standards for driverless car software. If you…

What is the legal/regulatory difference between the aerospace industry regulating itself vs the auto industry regulating itself in regards to self driving? Besides the obvious that the aerospace industry has a head start.

I believe I understand your point better.

From the person you're responding to:

> Yes, those standards that produced a safety regime of 20 years of flights without software being even implicated in a single fatality. ...

> As you note, unfortunately the standards as employed in practice have recently regressed dramatically to allow a system as unsafe as the 737 MAX to fly. ...

Your point, if I'm not mistaken, being that the FAA has clearly allowed for less stringent regulations in recent years. (Please correct me if I'm wrong. You can ask questions but it does not seem that they lead so immediately to the answers you expect.)

That being said, please consider that I am genuinely trying to understand you:

> I'm all for a dissenting opinion, but when it is not presented in an understandable way the discussion becomes hard to follow.

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

#465

Post by ufmace »

notatoad wrote: post #127
logifail wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Waymo's marketing would imply they think the whole fleet should be suspended in this case. They call their system the driver, and seem to anthropomorphise it. But more practically: what could a self-driving car do to get it's licence suspended? Afaik That's a pretty rare punishment outside of two cases: drunk driving or street racing.

It's a rare normal punishment for any single crime. But it's a pretty common escalation for repeated failure to cooperate with the system. A ticket for speeding or running a stop sign might be just a fine. But if you start no-showing your court dates, not making the payments, keep raking up more moving violations without properly resolving any of them, then you might find your license getting suspended.

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

#466

Post by asveikau »

colinmhayes wrote: post #406
jonny_eh wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it justifies their actions. Would we be quoting him if he didn't murder innocent people?

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 think he ultimately suffered mental illness, and it is reflected in both the fact that he murdered and the ideas in his manifesto. It's hard to separate them.

There may be similar ideas expressed by those who don't share his pathology, but his version of it is extreme and fringe.

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

#467

Post by jklinger410 »

Veserv wrote: post #433
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?

Yes, those standards that produced a safety regime of 20 years of flights without software being even implicated in a single fatality. Literally trillions if not quadrillions of passenger-miles per software-related fatality. Those same standards which result in a system like the 737 MAX rightfully being excoriated for only being 10% safer than driving and resulted in successful demands for grounding of the entire fle…

> Literally trillions if not quadrillions of passenger-miles per software-related fatality.

So these were all miles where people were unwilling testers as well. The difference being airplane auto-pilot is primarily focused on keeping the plane in the air, not dodging pedestrians. I think it does a lot of warnings for the pilots as well, but I'm not in the industry.

It's really comparing apples to oranges, isn't it?

> since self driving cars are a even harder and more dangerous technology with far more downside risk, they should use a standard even more rigorous than the historical airplane standards

So this is on The United States Department of Transportation to be far more involved in regulating the software that governs self driving. But the question is, was the FAA as relaxed in governing the aerospace industry 60 some odd years ago as USDT is now, and did they just get lucky that flying planes is actually easier than driving cars? Or is there actually some negligence involved?

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

#468

Post by AnimalMuppet »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #460
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of us consider murder to be self-evidently wrong. The intersection of "right, and causing murder" is very close to empty for most definitions of "right". Your question makes me wonder what your definition of "right" is.

Murder is typically defined as unjustifiable or wrong, so you would expect the set to be empty. Replace "murder" with 'killing" and most people will have the opposite reaction.

>>>> I don't think his murders invalidate his manifesto.

- colinmhayes (the original post I responded to).

And, for your point to be relevant to this discussion, you would have to claim that what the Unabomber did was "killing" rather than "murder". If you claim that, I'd like to see your definitions and where you think the line between killing and murder is.

And if that isn't your claim, it looks like you're just arguing in order to argue.

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

#469

Post by enneff »

MathCodeLove wrote: post #163
jcranmer wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Already today, cars do not travel at 40mph in those areas with heavy pedestrian traffic--the typical speed limit on a city street is 25mph, and even that is probably above typical speeds. If you want cars to travel more quickly, you need to resort to highways that completely cut off pedestrian access, which has seriously deleterious effects on the neighborhoods it travels through. If you try to compromise, you end up…

Alright, but 25mph is still significantly faster than walking speed. I do think that mass transportation would be nice and we could use a better public trans infra in the US, but that doesn't make the fact that waking is still much less efficient that driving. 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 t…

The alternative to car-centric streets is mixed use emphasising bikes, pedestrians, and public transport.

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

#470

Post by enneff »

MathCodeLove wrote: post #351
Cockbrand wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, let's all take a deep breath here - we might just have a different understanding of the word "road". My definition of "road" is not restricted to interstates and highways, but it includes any larger road, err, street. Of course, nobody wants pedestrians or cyclists on highways. It looks like we agree there. But I refuse the popular notion that roads (as in larger streets, or any street between villages/towns/citi…

But why should shared roads be preferred over sidewalks? I see quite a few potential disadvantages but no real advantages whatsoever.

There’s an entirety different worldview that you are missing here. Check out this great YouTube channel which goes into a lot of detail about how our cities and towns could be better designed. https://youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes
Post reply on HN