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

181–190 of 1001 posts

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#181

Post by mariusmg »

yegle wrote: post #109
eep_social wrote: post #82

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 AV braked aggressively before impact and because it detected a collision, it attempted to pull over to avoid further safety issues," Cruise added. "When the AV tried to pull over, it continued before coming to a final stop, pulling the pedestrian forward. Our thoughts continue to be with the victim as we hope for a rapid and complete recovery." This looks like Cruise's fault, dragging a pedestrian while pullin…

>This looks like Cruise's fault

Imagine having to write the code that "detects" if a pedestrain is caught underneath the car

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#183

Post by mips_avatar »

pj_mukh wrote: post #160
mips_avatar wrote: post #96

The incident last month where that woman got dragged and pinned by the Cruise vehicle was pretty disconcerting. The initial collision wasn't the fault of the cruise vehicle (another vehicle hit her pushing her into the cruise vehicle and fled the scene), but the cruise vehicle then proceeded to try to "pull over" and just dragged this woman and rolled over her leg. Weird situation but definitely something made much m…

Did Cruise release the video, its not clear to me a human driver would be better (other than some textual descriptions of the event)? The (human) person who actually caused the crash is still at large, and the bay area (SF + Oakland) still continues to one of the municipalities with negligble traffic enforcement [1] and massively dangerous (human) driving behavior [2]. So the city and DMV focussing their efforts on t…

This woman got dragged 20 feet by the car after the collision, and then the car rolled over her leg and left her pinned to the ground until the fire department came and removed the wheel to get her out. The cruise vehicle wasn't at fault for the initial accident, but the subsequent damage it caused was entirely the fault of the autonomous vehicle. A person would have stopped and helped the pedestrian.

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#184

Post by batch12 »

As long as we mix human and machine control, I think we will continue to have problems. If we take humans out of equation somehow, we may eliminate a lot of edge cases like this. Self driving cars need their own lanes. After that, we could couple them together. Then maybe put them on rails...

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#185

Post by yieldcrv »

leni536 wrote: post #179
yieldcrv wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

I don't think it's the job of the regulation to cover every possible corner case and to codify the exact behavior of AVs in law.

in the universe of possibilities from my post, that also means removing the minimal risk regulation since it created more danger

until they figure that out, this is a not-intolerable course of action. it doesn't need to be interpreted as punitive.

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#186

Post by RC_ITR »

Lonestar1440 wrote: post #120

From my perspective as a person who lives in San Francisco and also drives a LOT (10-20k miles per year, and many small drives within the city): Cruise cars do not perform acceptably. They manage to avoid collisions by driving extremely conservatively, but the way they traverse, say, a left turn against traffic is absurd. They slow everyone down, including emergency vehicles and public transit, by performing far belo…

I agree with what you said, BUT

From my perspective as a person who lives in San Francisco and also bikes a LOT: human driver also do not perform acceptably.

I counted 14 cars without headlights on after sunset on a 2 mile bike ride yesterday.

I counted 5 cars parked in either a bike lane or active traffic.

2 cars took blind rights (no stops) onto Polk from various alleyways.

This was a good day, FWIW.

Cruises have obvious problems, but my hope is we don't use humans as a baseline, because they're not very good either.

EDIT: This comment is pretty controversial for whatever reason, but said differently - why would we allow autonomous cars to kill 30k Americans every year (the same allowance we give human drivers)?

That seems like a comically bad baseline.

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#187

Post by starttoaster »

stfp wrote: post #132
starttoaster wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Besides what the other user pointed out, there are tens of millions of people driving an hour or more every day just to get to work, and that time sink might feel a bit more bearable if you could relax and do whatever you wanted during that time rather than focus on all the obstacles around you. I don't know that the state of self-driving vehicles will be quite there in my lifetime, but some time in the future they w…

> that time sink might feel a bit more bearable if you could relax and do whatever you wanted during that time rather than focus on all the obstacles around you We could use... trains & buses. Self-driving trains and buses! But self-driving individual cars, because they will make the time more bearable, will induce even more driving, which is the opposite of what we want.

Oh, I completely agree. This is big tech solving a problem for humans, but ignoring a larger problem for humanity.

To give the benefit of the doubt, my assumption is that they're solving it this way because the road infrastructure and market for cars already exists. You'd see big tech working on automating public transit if states actually started improving their public transit infrastructure.

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#188

Post by bdamm »

cp9 wrote: post #122

if people weren't VC brained they would realize that the way to prevent traffic deaths isn't to build fancy self driving cars, it's to invest in safer, more pedestrian friendly infrastructure and use the boring technology that already exists to get people where they want to go. the future is on buses and trains and bikes and pedestrian friendly 15 minute communities

Ignoring reality 101.

Cars were here yesterday, people loved them for their freedom. Cars are here today, people love them and build communities around them. Cars will be here tomorrow, and people will still love them.

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#189

Post by tivert »

freedomben wrote: post #176
tivert wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you think the potential future where humans are freed from doing anything for their transportation (no driving, no pedaling, no steering, no danger, no waiting in traffic, etc) is worth some short term pain while we develop the tech? Was the pain and suffering during the industrial revolution days that have led to our current high tech world worth it? Or more succinctly: "You can't make an omelette without break…

> Or more succinctly: "You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Sorry, eggs [regular people]. I'm not trying to make a statement or a point with the question. The original question is all that is part of the question. Please don't try to read more in than what is there. > Ends justify the means thinking leads to some dark places. For sure, but if we try to avoid any and all pain then we could still be n…

> For sure, but if we try to avoid any and all pain then we could still be nomadic people. Maybe life satisfaction then was higher, but certainly life expectancy wasn't. Just the death rate of babies and women alone was pretty dangerous.

You're presenting a false dichotomy. Giving self-driving car companies free reign to cheaply experiment on the public is not the same as "avoid[ing] any and all pain" or avoiding all technological progress.

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#190

Post by tempsy »

moffkalast wrote: post #168
tempsy wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A dark colored Nissan Sentra was stopped in the adjacent lane to the left of the AV. When the light turned green, the Nissan Sentra and the AV entered the intersection. Against a red light, a pedestrian entered the crosswalk on the opposite side of Market Street across from the vehicles, passed completely through the AV’s lane of travel, then stopped mid-crosswalk in front of the Nissan Sentra. The Nissan Sentra the…

I mean talk about an edge case, I doubt the software really considers "have pedestrians literally thrown at the car" situations all that much.

That wasn't what I was referring to. This is in reference to a jaywalker. My point is both cars should have stopped when they saw a jaywalker crossing the street.

It doesn't sound like the Cruise car stopped because it basically saw that the woman had just barely crossed to its left out of its path of travel.

A more cautious driver would have slowed down at the very least or stopped completely.

Post reply on HN