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

Cruise told by CA DMV to reduce robotaxi fleet 50% following crash

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 205 posts

Re: Cruise told by CA DMV to reduce robotaxi fleet 50% following crash

#151

Post by Gabrys1 »

gruez wrote: post #149
Gabrys1 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that IS a fair metric. Be it for Tesla or for robotaxi and let me explain why. Tesla vehicles should be compared to similar vehicles driven by people that can afford a Tesla. (Not to a national average that includes lots of small, cheap or old cars). Robotaxis incident rates should be compared to taxi incident rates in the specific areas. There should be some way of factoring in the overly-cautious driv…

>Tesla vehicles should be compared to similar vehicles driven by people that can afford a Tesla. (Not to a national average that includes lots of small, cheap or old cars). >Robotaxis incident rates should be compared to taxi incident rates in the specific areas. That's what I said in the original comment? >overall accident rates (controlling for reasonable variables of course)

You did say that, not sure how I missed that. Sorry for that

Re: Cruise told by CA DMV to reduce robotaxi fleet 50% following crash

#152

Post by Gabrys1 »

agnosticmantis wrote: post #134
joshuahedlund wrote: post #2

> The latest Cruise incident occurred Thursday night when a Cruise robotaxi and an emergency vehicle crashed and left a passenger injured. Cruise said in a social media post that one of its self-driving Chevy Bolt EVs entered an intersection on a green traffic light at Polk and Turk streets when it was struck by an emergency vehicle that appeared to be en route to an emergency scene. Noticing and responding to emerge…

Maybe we should try other signaling methods (radio?) for emergency vehicles that’s easier to process for computers. That may be end up being useful for human drivers too ultimately.

Why would we do that?

Re: Cruise told by CA DMV to reduce robotaxi fleet 50% following crash

#153

Post by Gabrys1 »

JackMorgan wrote: post #129
BenjiWiebe wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking as someone who drives emergency vehicles with flashing lights and sirens - it's amazing how many people presumably with average hearing and average vision cannot see a fire truck until it's been tailing them for a while.

As a frequent lights and sirens passenger I'm convinced that they cause such a huge adrenaline spike that surrounding drivers act completely irrationally. Drivers will see us and then slam on the gas to dart in front or sometimes just stop in front of us. So many close calls where our engine almost gets hit by a human driver who seems completely committed to hitting us. Or we'll be turning onto a street (sometimes we…

If you're in the US, please pass feedback to whomever it makes sense that the signals are just too loud to the point of being dangerous. Thank you :-)

(I get the impression these are just a tad quieter in Europe)

Re: Cruise told by CA DMV to reduce robotaxi fleet 50% following crash

#154

Post by mindslight »

7e wrote: post #37
s0rce wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a human that drove into wet concrete: https://www.wlwt.com/article/car-drives-through-wet-concrete... I'm sure its not that uncommon just not publicized, people are terrible drivers.

Do terrible drivers drive as much as Cruise does? Terrible drivers at least eventually get better through practice. Having 100 poorer than average driving autonomous cars in the streets driving around 24x7 is a net worsening. Autonomous cars improve more slowly than humans do.

> Terrible drivers at least eventually get better through practice

Yeah by the second or third time people generally learn to keep the throttle up so the wheels don't sink down into the wet concrete.

Re: Cruise told by CA DMV to reduce robotaxi fleet 50% following crash

#155

Post by Dowwie »

Pedestrian safety is to self- driving cars what child porn is to encryption. It is the excuse used by government to conceal its true motives. How many millions of dollars of traffic fine revenue will government be deprived of when self- driving cars follow every law governing it?

This isn't about safety. It's about money.

Re: Cruise told by CA DMV to reduce robotaxi fleet 50% following crash

#156

Post by Gabrys1 »

yazaddaruvala wrote: post #144
petre wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have to take a test after training. Also a two year probation with zero tolerance on drunk driving and other offenses.

Should we give the robots the same test, if they pass they get the drivers license? Seems like a low bar to me - for both robots and humans. We should instead raise the standards even higher for both!

I don't see why we wouldn't make a robotaxis pass driving exams. Also, I don't see how would this help. Most accidents are caused by licensed drivers

Re: Cruise told by CA DMV to reduce robotaxi fleet 50% following crash

#157

Post by jfoster »

blibble wrote: post #140
jfoster wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cone blocking isn't hacking. It's simple criminal behavior.

which law is being broken?

Good question & to be honest I'm not 100% sure, though I bet there are many laws vague enough to capture it.

If it causes extreme traffic jams, perhaps there's some kind of public nuisance law that will cover it? Is interference with public infrastructure a crime?

Do you actually think this type of behavior will simply be tolerated?

Re: Cruise told by CA DMV to reduce robotaxi fleet 50% following crash

#158

Post by Gabrys1 »

dehrmann wrote: post #30
botanical wrote: post #15

I've said it before when a self-driving Uber killed a woman, and I'll say it again: I don't understand why authorities allow self-driving cars to beta test out in public. I thought Waymo was the best with something like millions of hours on the road but when they started accepting passengers, it failed to proceed past a traffic cone: https://youtu.be/zdKCQKBvH-A?t=742 I wouldn't trust any of the others like Tesla and…

You're criticizing them for both being dangerous and overly cautious? If anything, the Waymo clip confirms that Waymo's offering is safe.

Those are not mutually exclusive.

Re: Cruise told by CA DMV to reduce robotaxi fleet 50% following crash

#159

Post by jfoster »

bombcar wrote: post #120
Kamq wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Understanding a system well enough to manipulate it in ways that the owner doesn't want seems at least in the same category of phone phreaker behavior. Which was also criminal behavior, but the point is that I don't think it automatically disqualifies it from the category.

Exactly. Some criminal acts are so simple even an animal could do them - destroy something. Others are so complex or use the software against itself that they clearly are hacking; even if they remain criminal.

Is putting a cone on a vehicle to cause traffic jams really so complex? Perhaps the first person to do it was a bit clever, but anyone imitating it really isn't.

Re: Cruise told by CA DMV to reduce robotaxi fleet 50% following crash

#160

Post by lumost »

shwaj wrote: post #55
lumost wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How good are those sensors relative to human ears? Human ears are still freakishly effective at filtering out background noise.

A small nit (sorry): it’s probably not a matter of sensor quality (decent quality microphones are not very expensive), but rather the neural networks that process the audio signal.

It’s a blend of both. The human ear has a vastly more complex structure than a membrane and a sensor.

We have complex flexible shapes to channel audio. Alongside an extremely complex set of hairs for hearing.

Post reply on HN