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

California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 1001 posts

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#81

Post by xyst »

TxDMV needs to follow this. Fuck these companies.

They are testing their garbage in dense urban areas. Too many times their vehicles just stop in the middle of the road.

If it rains, vehicle stops.

If the light is out, vehicle panics and stops.

Somebody puts a cone on the hood, vehicle panics.

If a single variable not accounted for in their algorithms shifts beyond expected range, it fucking panics.

So much money dumped/wasted into “autonomous personal vehicles”. How about we invest in making our cities more pedestrian, bike, and public transportation friendly? Let’s move people more efficiently rather than further digging ourselves into this hole.

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#82

Post by eep_social »

But not Waymo. Which confirms all my personal biases.

More seriously, the statement cites four specific clauses that caused the permit to be suspended. The second one seems really interesting as it implies that there was a lie of omission where the others are more or less what I’d expect regarding safety risks:

> Today’s suspensions are based on the following:

> 13 CCR §228.20 (b) (6) – Based upon the performance of the vehicles, the Department determines the manufacturer’s vehicles are not safe for the public’s operation.

> 13 CCR §228.20 (b) (3) – The manufacturer has misrepresented any information related to safety of the autonomous technology of its vehicles.

> 13 CCR §227.42 (b) (5) – Any act or omission of the manufacturer or one of its agents, employees, contractors, or designees which the department finds makes the conduct of autonomous vehicle testing on public roads by the manufacturer an unreasonable risk to the public.

> 13 CCR §227.42 (c) – The department shall immediately suspend or revoke the Manufacturer’s Testing Permit or a Manufacturer’s Testing Permit – Driverless Vehicles if a manufacturer is engaging in a practice in such a manner that immediate suspension is required for the safety of persons on a public road.

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#85

Post by hristov »

cryptoz wrote: post #73
reset2023 wrote: post #69

[flagged]

Something like 30,000 Americans alone are killed every year in car accidents. I think the primary idea is to reduce the constant death on the road by making machines that are safer at driving than humans. The toll that car accidents have on society is honestly unconscionable.

That is a good point. A secondary benefit, is a self driving car can literally give most workers that commute about an hour per day of their lives back. For some people it will be two to three hours.

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#87

Post by zachur »

swatcoder wrote: post #19
s1mon wrote: post #10

According to Cruise's X(Twitter) account [0], the suspension seems to be related to an incident in which a human driver hit-and-run propelled a pedestrian in front of a Cruise AV and the Cruise vehicle couldn't avoid hitting the person. When that incident was first reported [1], it seemed like a situation where if it was a human driver in the Cruise vehicle, they wouldn't be found to be at any fault. However given th…

From the article, it sounds like the Cruise vehicle didn't just strike the pedestrian but stopped on top of her and pinned her in place. A bystander needed to recognize the incident and reassure her until emergency services arrived and mechanically removed her from below the vehicle using the jaws of life. While not impossible, it's hard to imagine a human-driver scenario that would look quite like that, regardless o…

You're right, a human driver might not have remained in place. And as a result they would have risked further injury or death.

"“When it comes to someone pinned beneath a vehicle, the most effective way to unpin them is to lift the vehicle,” Sgt. Kathryn Winters, a spokesperson for the department, said in an interview. Were a driver to move a vehicle with a person lying there, “you run the risk of causing more injury.”"[0]

[0] https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/cruise-driverless-tax...

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#89

Post by SilverBirch »

> then attempted to pull over to avoid causing further road safety issues, pulling the individual forward approximately 20 feet.

That’s a pretty enormous screw up and not one I’d heard about when this was initially reported. Interesting the statement from the DMV implies they were lying…

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#90

Post by yieldcrv »

wstrange wrote: post #71

Link to Cruise review of incident: https://getcruise.com/news/blog/2023/a-detailed-review-of-th...

> This is called achieving a minimal risk condition

so pulling over after a collision, which resulted in dragging the human 20 feet is an interpretation of this regulation.

sounds like California and Federal AVs regulations are equally not safe for the public's operations

which is a good enough reason to revoke permits too, until they fix this together with the private industry

Post reply on HN