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

Uber self-driving car crashes into another car in Pittsburgh

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 26 posts

Re: Uber self-driving car crashes into another car in Pittsburgh

#11

Post by UncleEntity »

trendia wrote: post #8
UncleEntity wrote: post #4

Yep, if you make a left turn in front of oncoming traffic it's pretty much always your fault even if the robot was driving the other car. Though, in this case, it's probably cheaper for Uber to fix the other car than pay all the lawyer fees because you know there's going to be lawyers involved.

The damage was on the front-right bumper of the left-turning car. The only way I can see the left-turning car being at fault is if the left-turning car was in the leftmost lane, and the right-turning car tried to merge into the leftmost lane as well (rather than the closest lane as required)

> "As I was making my left, he continued to drive straight and slammed directly into the side of my vehicle," she said.

Ignoring the misgendering of the robot car of course...

Re: Uber self-driving car crashes into another car in Pittsburgh

#12

Post by tetromino_ »

UncleEntity wrote: post #7
rahimnathwani wrote: post #2

I don't know what the law says about this in the US, but when I was taught to drive (in the UK), I was told not to assume that someone signalling would actually do what was they were indicating, and that I would be responsible for whatever happened if I took action in reliance of that signal. Not sure if that's the law in the UK, or just my instructor teaching me to drive defensively.

I used to get people trying to trick me into turning in front of them all the time in the company car for the last company I worked for. Usually go like; Me: making right turn out of a parking lot see a car with their blinker on presumably turning into the place I'm leaving so I creep forwards a few feet. Other car: sees me creeping forwards and think I'm going to turn in front of them so floors it. Happened so many…

I think I'm missing something, why were you being targeted by these people?

Re: Uber self-driving car crashes into another car in Pittsburgh

#13

Post by TipVFL »

According to the article this was a 4 lane road, and she was in the furthest lane to the left of the Uber driver. The Uber driver was in furthest right lane, with a left turn signal on, preparing to change lanes.

So, she cut across two lanes to crash into oncoming traffic. I'm not sure of the Pittsburgh driving laws, but generally you're supposed to get into your left-most lane before taking a left.

I don't think she has a hope in court, especially since Uber definitely has high quality records of everything that occurred.

Re: Uber self-driving car crashes into another car in Pittsburgh

#14

Post by foobarbazetc »

TipVFL wrote: post #13

According to the article this was a 4 lane road, and she was in the furthest lane to the left of the Uber driver. The Uber driver was in furthest right lane, with a left turn signal on, preparing to change lanes. So, she cut across two lanes to crash into oncoming traffic. I'm not sure of the Pittsburgh driving laws, but generally you're supposed to get into your left-most lane before taking a left. I don't think she…

“I don't think she has a hope in court, especially since Uber definitely has high quality records of everything that occurred.”

How do you know?

Re: Uber self-driving car crashes into another car in Pittsburgh

#15

Post by maym86 »

tetromino_ wrote: post #12
UncleEntity wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to get people trying to trick me into turning in front of them all the time in the company car for the last company I worked for. Usually go like; Me: making right turn out of a parking lot see a car with their blinker on presumably turning into the place I'm leaving so I creep forwards a few feet. Other car: sees me creeping forwards and think I'm going to turn in front of them so floors it. Happened so many…

I think I'm missing something, why were you being targeted by these people?

Insurance fraud. Fleet vehicles and taxis have high insurance requirements and people can get payouts.

I've seen videos of people putting their car into reverse to force a rear end collision to make it look like the driver behind is at fault.

Re: Uber self-driving car crashes into another car in Pittsburgh

#16

Post by TipVFL »

foobarbazetc wrote: post #14
TipVFL wrote: post #13

According to the article this was a 4 lane road, and she was in the furthest lane to the left of the Uber driver. The Uber driver was in furthest right lane, with a left turn signal on, preparing to change lanes. So, she cut across two lanes to crash into oncoming traffic. I'm not sure of the Pittsburgh driving laws, but generally you're supposed to get into your left-most lane before taking a left. I don't think she…

“I don't think she has a hope in court, especially since Uber definitely has high quality records of everything that occurred.” How do you know?

It was a self-driving car, do you really think Uber doesn't keep all the sensor data?

Re: Uber self-driving car crashes into another car in Pittsburgh

#17

Post by mtnygard »

I don't want to get into the particulars of this single wreck.

But it does make me think that we're going to need some new laws as we adapt to a mixed use on the roads:

1. The self-driving car & its operating company must retain all sensor and video data. No "oops we lost it" when going to court.

2. There has to be some way for the human driver to know what legal entity is operating the car. It's pretty easy to imagine driverless hit-and-run accidents.

3. Human drivers have to be able to get insurance information from the automated vehicle. (I have no idea how! But humans are able to work out an ad-hoc protocol to exchange insurance info on the spot. Automated vehicles would need to have something predefined.)

Basically, _when_ an accident occurs, the human and the human's insurance company has to have some way to connect with the insurance company of the automated car and its operator.

Re: Uber self-driving car crashes into another car in Pittsburgh

#18

Post by sjg007 »

maym86 wrote: post #15
tetromino_ wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I'm missing something, why were you being targeted by these people?

Insurance fraud. Fleet vehicles and taxis have high insurance requirements and people can get payouts. I've seen videos of people putting their car into reverse to force a rear end collision to make it look like the driver behind is at fault.

Cars have 30sec black boxes.. I think that should cover this scenario as do dash cams.

Re: Uber self-driving car crashes into another car in Pittsburgh

#19

Post by trav4225 »

UncleEntity wrote: post #7
rahimnathwani wrote: post #2

I don't know what the law says about this in the US, but when I was taught to drive (in the UK), I was told not to assume that someone signalling would actually do what was they were indicating, and that I would be responsible for whatever happened if I took action in reliance of that signal. Not sure if that's the law in the UK, or just my instructor teaching me to drive defensively.

I used to get people trying to trick me into turning in front of them all the time in the company car for the last company I worked for. Usually go like; Me: making right turn out of a parking lot see a car with their blinker on presumably turning into the place I'm leaving so I creep forwards a few feet. Other car: sees me creeping forwards and think I'm going to turn in front of them so floors it. Happened so many…

I seriously hope you're just kidding around with that last paragraph...
Post reply on HN