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

Uber’s Self-Driving Cars Were Struggling Before Arizona Crash

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 245 posts

Re: Uber’s Self-Driving Cars Were Struggling Before Arizona Crash

#11

Post by dgacmu »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #6

I don't understand the fuss around this topic. In my country the law is very clear: in such a case the pedestrian has 100% of the guilt, the driver has 0% responsibility. From the movie, the pedestrian is hard to see. Yes, people point at Lidar and other systems, but human driven cars don't have anything like this: any human driver would have the accident in the same circumstances. But how about the pedestrian, didn'…

We expect people to operate within the limits of their capabilities. We don't demand superhuman response time because we can't. We rely on things like "best practices" to capture reasonable standards of behavior.

Self driving car hardware is trivially capable of detecting a person walking in the road 80 feet in front of you. We should set our standards based not just upon meeting human performance, but also upon doing extra things that are well within the system capability.

Re: Uber’s Self-Driving Cars Were Struggling Before Arizona Crash

#12

Post by wavefunction »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #6

I don't understand the fuss around this topic. In my country the law is very clear: in such a case the pedestrian has 100% of the guilt, the driver has 0% responsibility. From the movie, the pedestrian is hard to see. Yes, people point at Lidar and other systems, but human driven cars don't have anything like this: any human driver would have the accident in the same circumstances. But how about the pedestrian, didn'…

Why should we accept your puny and limited human capability of "vision" as an excuse for a superior machine capable of much quicker reaction times and outfitted with a plethora of sensors that operate far beyond your narrow natural limitations.

Re: Uber’s Self-Driving Cars Were Struggling Before Arizona Crash

#13

Post by cozzyd »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #6

I don't understand the fuss around this topic. In my country the law is very clear: in such a case the pedestrian has 100% of the guilt, the driver has 0% responsibility. From the movie, the pedestrian is hard to see. Yes, people point at Lidar and other systems, but human driven cars don't have anything like this: any human driver would have the accident in the same circumstances. But how about the pedestrian, didn'…

The video has poor dynamic range and is likely highly misleading. If the safety driver were paying attention it's quite likely they could have avoided it (although I imagine disengagement would negatively affect reaction time).

Re: Uber’s Self-Driving Cars Were Struggling Before Arizona Crash

#14

Post by oneshoe »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #6

I don't understand the fuss around this topic. In my country the law is very clear: in such a case the pedestrian has 100% of the guilt, the driver has 0% responsibility. From the movie, the pedestrian is hard to see. Yes, people point at Lidar and other systems, but human driven cars don't have anything like this: any human driver would have the accident in the same circumstances. But how about the pedestrian, didn'…

I don't know what country you live in but, in Arizona it is different:

http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/pedestrian-cross...

The pedestrian had the right-away in this particular situation.

EDIT :: Looks like I read that first sentence wrong (my apologies)... "Vehicles must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians within a crosswalk that are in the same half of the roadway as the vehicle or when a pedestrian is approaching closely enough from the opposite side of the roadway to constitute a danger"

Growing up in AZ I was always told that pedestrians ALWAYS have the right away - something I always thought was strange.

I do stand correct however.

Re: Uber’s Self-Driving Cars Were Struggling Before Arizona Crash

#15

Post by dbt00 »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #6

I don't understand the fuss around this topic. In my country the law is very clear: in such a case the pedestrian has 100% of the guilt, the driver has 0% responsibility. From the movie, the pedestrian is hard to see. Yes, people point at Lidar and other systems, but human driven cars don't have anything like this: any human driver would have the accident in the same circumstances. But how about the pedestrian, didn'…

It would help if you actually state the country in question, so we can properly judge your statement's applicability.

In the USA laws vary by state -- in California it is typically almost always incumbent on the driver to avoid pedestrians.

I've also traveled to countries like Jordan where the driver is always at fault, and fatally striking a pedestrian would have lifelong consequences for a driver.

Re: Uber’s Self-Driving Cars Were Struggling Before Arizona Crash

#16

Post by ocdtrekkie »

danso wrote: post #4

> As of March, Uber was struggling to meet its target of 13 miles per “intervention” in Arizona For reference’s sake, here are the disengagement ratios for the companies who operate in California, which requires such disclosures: https://www.google.com/amp/s/thelastdriverlicenseholder.com/... Waymo averaged more than 5,000 miles per disengagement, fwiw. Though as the link mentions, the definition of “disengagement” c…

Please de-AMP your links.

Re: Uber’s Self-Driving Cars Were Struggling Before Arizona Crash

#17

Post by skybrian »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #6

I don't understand the fuss around this topic. In my country the law is very clear: in such a case the pedestrian has 100% of the guilt, the driver has 0% responsibility. From the movie, the pedestrian is hard to see. Yes, people point at Lidar and other systems, but human driven cars don't have anything like this: any human driver would have the accident in the same circumstances. But how about the pedestrian, didn'…

That seems kind of odd. Drivers are never at fault? What country is this?

In any case, it's less about the law or even who is at fault, and more about level of safety expected from self-driving vehicles and how to improve it. This is going to be investigated like an airline crash would, and the investigation should show what needs to be fixed.

Re: Uber’s Self-Driving Cars Were Struggling Before Arizona Crash

#18

Post by PinguTS »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #6

I don't understand the fuss around this topic. In my country the law is very clear: in such a case the pedestrian has 100% of the guilt, the driver has 0% responsibility. From the movie, the pedestrian is hard to see. Yes, people point at Lidar and other systems, but human driven cars don't have anything like this: any human driver would have the accident in the same circumstances. But how about the pedestrian, didn'…

I don't know which country you are talking about.

Dash cams are of low quality, which means such low light situations are hard for dash cams, but easy for the human eye. That means, if the drive should have take attention, the situation could have been prevented.

Second, every modern technology can cope with this situation, except Uber. A regular Volvo XC90 would have enganged emergency braking, which is called City Safety.

Re: Uber’s Self-Driving Cars Were Struggling Before Arizona Crash

#19

Post by fabian2k »

> Waymo, formerly the self-driving car project of Google, said that in tests on roads in California last year, its cars went an average of nearly 5,600 miles before the driver had to take control from the computer to steer out of trouble. As of March, Uber was struggling to meet its target of 13 miles per “intervention” in Arizona

There can certainly be arguments about whether the kind of miles driven are equivalent here, but with more than two order of magnitude difference it hardly matters. I expected Uber to trail behind the top a bit, but I didn't expect that kind of huge difference.

This looked bad from the start for Uber, and it's only getting worse. I can understand that tests on public roads are necessary to actually achieve the goal of autonomous driving. But that step should come after sufficient tests in controlled environments that indicate that you got the basics down.

Re: Uber’s Self-Driving Cars Were Struggling Before Arizona Crash

#20

Post by ehsankia »

danso wrote: post #4

> As of March, Uber was struggling to meet its target of 13 miles per “intervention” in Arizona For reference’s sake, here are the disengagement ratios for the companies who operate in California, which requires such disclosures: https://www.google.com/amp/s/thelastdriverlicenseholder.com/... Waymo averaged more than 5,000 miles per disengagement, fwiw. Though as the link mentions, the definition of “disengagement” c…

Arizona, and all states really, should make this data and much more mandatory for testing. Not only that, but there needs to be a "minimum capability" you need to be able to prove before you're allowed to test on public roads.

No wonder Uber stopped driving in California, they didn't want people to see in what disastrous state their technology is. It's honestly ridiculous how reckless they are, all in the name of "winning" and being first.

Post reply on HN