Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 331 posts

Re: Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it

#101

Post by rootusrootus »

mattlondon wrote: post #46

To be honest, as a human driver I'd not give a second thought to driving over a hose. Not saying that is right or not, just surprised this is apparently an issue worth smashing a car up for. I have no recollection of this being in the highway code for instance

Have you ever seen a firehose in action? It is commonly 2.5 inches in diameter, and my first reaction on seeing one is "that does not look like something I want to drive over." Completely separate from the fact that it is a firehose, if you put down a 2.5 inch diameter pipe on the road, I'd feel the same way about not driving over it.

Re: Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it

#102

Post by rootusrootus »

mattlondon wrote: post #95
ghaff wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously? You'd just drive over a firehose because it was in your way?

Yeah I would.

That is unintentionally the best argument for autonomous vehicles I've seen in a while.

Re: Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it

#104

Post by frosted-flakes »

zimpenfish wrote: post #58
buzzert wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really believe that with that attitude, we'll never be "ready" for driverless cars. > We are not curing cancer or feeding the world here, we are trying to make people get rich by eliminating the cost of labour for a human driver. No way this calculus should prioritize investors over human lives in any sane society. How about, we're trying to make transportation cheaper for everyone by eliminating the most expensive…

> Before you mention public transportation, realize that it would benefit from driverless technologies as well Which has been in place for years in some places (ie Docklands Light Railway). > we're trying to make transportation cheaper for everyone Call me an old cynic but I'll believe it when I see it - I'm old enough to have seen many, many events where the supply cost of something has gone down but the consumer co…

Not just years—decades. The Victoria Line in London has had automatic train operation since it opened in 1968 (unlike the DRL, there's still someone in the driver's seat, but they do little more than shut the doors).

Re: Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it

#105

Post by LarryMullins »

Swenrekcah wrote: post #91
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So this is currently possible today: I can walk out on any street today and redirect traffic. With or without my reflective vest, drivers will generally listen to me. And self-driving vehicles must as well. Note that when I am doing traffic direction with appropriate authority, most drivers will never have heard of the organization I'm a part of (a local CERT team), nor have any real way to vet the authority I have.…

>There's no definitive way to determine that someone is authorized to direct traffic, cars just need to obey them. Exactly! But there still is a way. You don't obey anyone in any circumstances because that would be dangerous. People have a feeling for it, computers don't yet.

I'd obey such traffic commands from just about anybody in plain street clothes, unless they looked obviously crazy or if I was in part of the world where car jacking is common. At the very least I'd stop and ask them what was up. Maybe there is some dangerous condition ahead and they're trying to warn me.

Does the computerized car understand the meaning of the words "Turn back because the bridge is out"?

Re: Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it

#106

Post by danparsonson »

crazygringo wrote: post #24

Obviously autonomous vehicles need to be able to respond to officials directing traffic for any reason -- making way for ambulances, stopping for firefighters, being pulled over for a faulty headlight. Surely Cruise and Waymo have thought about this. Curious how it's supposed to work normally, and whether something about it failed in this case? How is an official supposed to get a moving autonomous vehicle to stop or…

> Surely Cruise and Waymo have thought about this

No worries, I bet they've factored the cost of the resulting fines neatly into their pricing model!

Re: Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it

#107

Post by kube-system »

alexfromapex wrote: post #47

This is going to slowly evolve into "law enforcement needs a killswitch" which is a scary thought

This is factory equipment on many cars for over a decade. (GM, Toyota, Mercedes, BMW)

e.g.: https://www.onstar.com/public-safety/emergency-situations

Re: Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it

#108

Post by ecnahc515 »

kube-system wrote: post #92
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So this is currently possible today: I can walk out on any street today and redirect traffic. With or without my reflective vest, drivers will generally listen to me. And self-driving vehicles must as well. Note that when I am doing traffic direction with appropriate authority, most drivers will never have heard of the organization I'm a part of (a local CERT team), nor have any real way to vet the authority I have.…

Human drivers are smart, and will generally judge your appearance, confidence, and context to determine whether or not your actions are legitimate. And you likely always pass these tests. Imagine a teenager, dressed in street wear, who jumps into the middle of a street to stop traffic in a way that has no explanation given the scene, while their friends laugh on the sidewalk as they observe. Or a group of men in mask…

In basically every example you gave, you still have to stop until people move though. The result is the same, despite everything else. The only one that's a bit iffy is if you're being carjacked, is a bit of an exception.

Legitimacy isn't really the problem, it's the circumstance of a human being in front of your car that prevents you from moving forward, and beyond getting out of your car and talking to them, or just waiting, you don't have much of a choice in what options you have.

I agree with the intent of your point, but what's the alternative? You can't just keep driving if someone is standing in the middle of the road.

Re: Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it

#109

Post by rdedev »

alexfromapex wrote: post #47

This is going to slowly evolve into "law enforcement needs a killswitch" which is a scary thought

A probably better idea would be giving law enforcement/ emergency services the capability to enforce a no autonomous driving zone. Autonomous cars should either find another route or give up control to the driver while in the zone

Re: Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it

#110

Post by jcoder »

onion2k wrote: post #77
crazygringo wrote: post #24

Obviously autonomous vehicles need to be able to respond to officials directing traffic for any reason -- making way for ambulances, stopping for firefighters, being pulled over for a faulty headlight. Surely Cruise and Waymo have thought about this. Curious how it's supposed to work normally, and whether something about it failed in this case? How is an official supposed to get a moving autonomous vehicle to stop or…

Obviously autonomous vehicles need to be able to respond to officials directing traffic for any reason. In that case it would also need to tell the difference between a cop and someone impersonating a cop, or it's going to be really easy to mess with self-driving cars.

That sounds like a them problem—society won’t change any practices to accommodate these toys that are demonstrating how little value they bring every day.
Post reply on HN