An autonomous car in SF blocked a fire truck responding to an emergency • Hacker News Board

Re: An autonomous car in SF blocked a fire truck responding to an emergency

#191

Post by InvertedRhodium » Sat, May 28, 2022, 1:05 AM UTC

anyfoo wrote: post #45

gojomo wrote: post #6

Given that often human-driven, or human-parked, cars create similar temporary obstacles, the most important question here is: does this happen more-often, or for longer-periods, with autonomous cars? I don't see the article, or quoted sources, even trying to make that comparison - so this is really only a half-story, compared to what's relevant. Further, given the remote-guidance possibilities with autonomous cars, i…

The problem is that there are literally uncountably many situations that a human with "general intelligence" will understand and react to accordingly. Sometimes smoothly, sometimes less so. But a non-conscious automatic entity needs to have the required behavior programmed in explicitly. So yes, you might argue that for this particular situation, you "just" need to put in the proper programming and AI/ML training and…

There are also uncountable ways the human can be erratic, antagonistic, etc.

Re: An autonomous car in SF blocked a fire truck responding to an emergency

#192

Post by aetherson » Sat, May 28, 2022, 1:07 AM UTC

rglullis wrote: post #181

aetherson wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, why don't we just do the easy thing and fundamentally rework all the physical infrastructure of every locality all at once. Gosh, why didn't we think of that.

It doesn't have to be all at once. The point is that all the money, time and intellectual capital put into the "building FSD cars" are not going to solve the most fundamental problems that exist in car-dependent cities and societies.

I guess I have a few responses:

1. If fully self-driving cars come along at some point in the recognizable future, I would bet pretty large amounts of money that they'll be extremely popular in Europe or whatever else you're thinking of as not "car-dependent."

2. The amount of money, time, and intellectual capital put into building driverless cars is an infinitesimal drop in the bucket compared to the money, time, and intellectual capital that would be necessary to make a gigantic change in the US physical infrastructure. Particularly time -- there's no way that America is going to change into Europe, well, ever, but particularly not in our lifetimes, so if you want a better transportation system, I wouldn't bet on that.

3. But also, the time, money, and intellectual capital spent on driverless cars is non-rival to any (limited, local) makeovers that American localities are going to get.

Re: An autonomous car in SF blocked a fire truck responding to an emergency

#193

Post by sokoloff » Sat, May 28, 2022, 1:21 AM UTC

piperswe wrote: post #110

google234123 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We live in a democracy where people living in an area have some control over it. And they use this control to block zoning laws.

They don't block zoning laws, rather they seem to ensure they are as strict as possible

If that’s what the people who live in an area want, that’s a democratic outcome. Democratic outcomes are something that I’m inclined to support absent compelling evidence why they should be thrown out.

Re: An autonomous car in SF blocked a fire truck responding to an emergency

#194

Post by sokoloff » Sat, May 28, 2022, 1:27 AM UTC

rglullis wrote: post #123

Mordisquitos wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree with you that car dependency is a serious problem in North America and I am also very critical of the obsession with self-driving, I don't think they are necessarily correlated with each other. In fact, one could argue that car-sharing and car-hailing are more amenable to self-driving than a market in which each individual is expected to own a car. I think self-driving is more established in North Ameri…

The question that most people seem to forget to ask: what is the societal benefit of having self-driving cars that could not be had by reducing car dependency in the first place ? "Roads will be safer"? Yes, they are safer already on cities with well-functioning public transit. "Less drunk-driving"? Same idea: if teenagers can live in areas where cars are not a necessity, they won't be behind the wheel and still be a…

Most of my car trips are random route. Most public transit (and all rail) runs on a fixed path. It’s rare that that fixed path aligns with my random route. The only trip I regularly take that vaguely aligns with a bus route is from 2 blocks away from my house to the grocery. (The grocery is about 4 total blocks from my house meaning walking halfway and then waiting for a bus still makes no sense.)

Re: An autonomous car in SF blocked a fire truck responding to an emergency

#195

Post by sokoloff » Sat, May 28, 2022, 1:32 AM UTC

gmfawcett wrote: post #42

gojomo wrote: post #6

Given that often human-driven, or human-parked, cars create similar temporary obstacles, the most important question here is: does this happen more-often, or for longer-periods, with autonomous cars? I don't see the article, or quoted sources, even trying to make that comparison - so this is really only a half-story, compared to what's relevant. Further, given the remote-guidance possibilities with autonomous cars, i…

Wouldn't the apples-to-apples comparison be: how many human drivers have been in the path of a honking fire truck, yet refused to move? Including parked cars and other "obstacle" cases is imbalanced.

Why would the only proper comparison be against a human driven car with a human in it rather than against all human driven car situations (including double parking)?

Re: An autonomous car in SF blocked a fire truck responding to an emergency

#196

Post by SllX » Sat, May 28, 2022, 1:52 AM UTC

treesprite82 wrote: post #176

SllX wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there’s no vehicles or people directly behind the car, no traffic close enough to pose a danger, and a quick spot check confirms this, why would it take you longer than 5 seconds to reverse out of the way? You don’t need to back up into Canada or something, a short distance is enough to let another necessarily impatient vehicle pass. In the end the garbage truck moved, which is why the fire truck was “able to pass…

> If there’s no vehicles or people directly behind the car, no traffic close enough to pose a danger, and a quick spot check confirms this No traffic close enough to pose a danger isn't a given in this scenario - there may well have been traffic. > why would it take you longer than 5 seconds to reverse out of the way? I think many would be at least slightly hesitant to back into an intersection. There would be initia…

Pull out a stopwatch and let it go up to 5 seconds.

Did that feel like too short an amount of time to watch your mirrors, and throw your car into reverse while making sure the hazard lights are on? The possible dangers at 4am are other cars (and you probably already knew if someone was driving behind you but you check anyway in case someone turned into your lane), people (who probably also heard the sirens and need to be yielding themselves) and animals (who are probably and hopefully not around anymore because fire engine sirens are extremely loud and scary). So you back up while watching your mirrors the entire time. By second 5, even if you go slowly, there should be space enough between you and the garbage truck for a fire engine to negotiate its way around you, and if there are other vehicles around but not also trying to get out the way, then congrats, you attempted to do your civic duty but the other guy failed. You’re absolved of your sins.

If that’s what happened, SFFD wouldn’t have complained to the City about this exact situation in which they described the three vehicles present: theirs, Sunset Scavenger’s and Cruise’s. Yielding in the way is not the correct maneuver when it doesn’t allow the fire engine to pass. Doing the maneuver that gets them through in the shortest amount of time without endangering anyone else in the process is, and it isn’t a complicated one, just un-fun and you shouldn’t be out-paced by someone who is literally outside their vehicle at the start of the situation when you are a piece of software that can never leave.

Re: An autonomous car in SF blocked a fire truck responding to an emergency

#197

Post by sokoloff » Sat, May 28, 2022, 1:58 AM UTC

SllX wrote: post #196

treesprite82 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If there’s no vehicles or people directly behind the car, no traffic close enough to pose a danger, and a quick spot check confirms this No traffic close enough to pose a danger isn't a given in this scenario - there may well have been traffic. > why would it take you longer than 5 seconds to reverse out of the way? I think many would be at least slightly hesitant to back into an intersection. There would be initia…

Pull out a stopwatch and let it go up to 5 seconds. Did that feel like too short an amount of time to watch your mirrors, and throw your car into reverse while making sure the hazard lights are on? The possible dangers at 4am are other cars (and you probably already knew if someone was driving behind you but you check anyway in case someone turned into your lane), people (who probably also heard the sirens and need t…

Have a passenger film you driving a trip across the city. At some random time while you’re stopped, have them unexpectedly scream at you to back up 40 feet right now. From the moment they do that, check behind you, turn your hazards on, shift to reverse, and safely back up 40 feet.

Check the video and I bet you’re well past 5 seconds when you complete the maneuver.

Re: An autonomous car in SF blocked a fire truck responding to an emergency

#198

Post by rglullis » Sat, May 28, 2022, 2:06 AM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #193

piperswe wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't block zoning laws, rather they seem to ensure they are as strict as possible

If that’s what the people who live in an area want, that’s a democratic outcome. Democratic outcomes are something that I’m inclined to support absent compelling evidence why they should be thrown out.

Except it is not what people want: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajSEIdjkU8E should help you in understanding what is the problem with current zoning laws on the US

Re: An autonomous car in SF blocked a fire truck responding to an emergency

#199

Post by rglullis » Sat, May 28, 2022, 2:21 AM UTC

aetherson wrote: post #192

rglullis wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't have to be all at once. The point is that all the money, time and intellectual capital put into the "building FSD cars" are not going to solve the most fundamental problems that exist in car-dependent cities and societies.

I guess I have a few responses: 1. If fully self-driving cars come along at some point in the recognizable future, I would bet pretty large amounts of money that they'll be extremely popular in Europe or whatever else you're thinking of as not "car-dependent." 2. The amount of money, time, and intellectual capital put into building driverless cars is an infinitesimal drop in the bucket compared to the money, time, an…

1. "Extremely popular" compared to what? Non-autonomous cars? Taxis? Bikes? Buses? Trains? Yeah, I could see people thinking it would be cool to get a self-driving car as a replacement for the occasional taxi, but why would people stop using the existing public transit alternatives that already work?

2 and 3. The American way for city growth is the cause of financial troubles for most cities. And I cited Amsterdam exactly why it works as an example of how you can redesign a city to reduce car-dependency step-wise. Take a look at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6... to see the economic problems that plague cities in the US, and how a lot of them are improving simply by changing zoning laws.

Re: An autonomous car in SF blocked a fire truck responding to an emergency

#200

Post by rglullis » Sat, May 28, 2022, 2:29 AM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #194

rglullis wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question that most people seem to forget to ask: what is the societal benefit of having self-driving cars that could not be had by reducing car dependency in the first place ? "Roads will be safer"? Yes, they are safer already on cities with well-functioning public transit. "Less drunk-driving"? Same idea: if teenagers can live in areas where cars are not a necessity, they won't be behind the wheel and still be a…

Most of my car trips are random route. Most public transit (and all rail) runs on a fixed path. It’s rare that that fixed path aligns with my random route. The only trip I regularly take that vaguely aligns with a bus route is from 2 blocks away from my house to the grocery. (The grocery is about 4 total blocks from my house meaning walking halfway and then waiting for a bus still makes no sense.)

Do you think that people living in countries that are not car-dependent have all "perfectly aligned routes"? No, they use bicycles, they walk, they rely on better public transit than the one that is available to you.

But anyway, how does that relate to the original question? Are you trying to justify your interest in FSD with the argument that would you give you some network of autonomous taxis?