Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck • Hacker News Board

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#161

Post by Zenbit_UX » Mon, May 07, 2018, 10:04 PM UTC

freditup wrote: post #18

I'm curious what degree of "cultural context" is built into automated cars - I feel that there has to be a lot of locale-specific techniques for driving. For example, in NYC, there's nothing at all uncommon about a pedestrian beginning to cross the street in front of you and approaching the area of your lane where you will shortly be. Pedestrians typically then stop about a foot away from your lane, let you drive pas…

Your examples are absurd. Would you program a car to assume that all New Yorkers won't Jay walk? How about all people in Tempe will rush into the streets?

Cultural context definetly matters, but for none of the reasons you've mentioned.

Writing specific use cases is insane for more reasons than I should have to point out to you. What if someone from tempe is on vacation in NY, should they be in danger because they follow a different culture?

You need to rely on universal rules and implement the most cautious strategies.

Pedestrian shows up at the curb, slow to a speed in which you can safely stop on a dime, resume cruising speed when the pedestrians intent is known.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#162

Post by rhacker » Mon, May 07, 2018, 10:06 PM UTC

ksenzee wrote: post #99

bryanlarsen wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very good argument but I don't think it will come to pass, for this reason: http://theoatmeal.com/pl/minor_differences/cutting_off There's something about driving that turns ordinary people into assholes. I've observed it in myself. Bus passengers are much more considerate, and I think that passengers in self-driving vehicles will behave like passengers, not like drivers. So if a pedestrian cuts them off the…

My theory is that people act like jerks behind the wheel, and come across as jerks even when they're not, because drivers have no way to apologize or ask please or do any other polite thing. All they can do is honk the horn, which is like yelling "HEY!!" If there were a communication mechanism for "excuse me, the light is green now" and "oops, so sorry, didn't see you there" driving would be easier and more pleasant.

I feel like in large cities the majority of drivers actually practice "mean" driving techniques - tailgating, lane protection (preventing people from merging-in when they have to), zoom-ups near contest areas, loud-music in communities, lane weaving.. I've left the bay area a long time ago now, but it's amazing when you live outside of that a couple years how awful people are behind the wheel. I would call it passive-aggressive behavior and it is really really bad to ones mental health. Bay area, Denver, Portland, Seattle there's a few others out west here - but make no mistake, the actions people take while driving is 100% actual jerk, not mistaken jerk.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#163

Post by bsder » Mon, May 07, 2018, 10:06 PM UTC

forgotmypw wrote: post #133

uptown wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NPR had a story about how self-driving cars in Pittsburgh wouldn't be adhering to the "Pittsburgh-left": "Even harder for autonomous cars to master are local quirks; things like "the Pittsburgh left." That's a custom unique to the city that allows the first driver trying to make a left turn to do so before oncoming cars pass through an intersection. It's one thing that Emily Duff Bartel says Uber's fleet of self-driv…

This custom is prevalent in places other than Pittsburgh. It can also get you a citation if a cop sees it.

It depends. Most cities whose road network predates cars have "local customs" which are essential to keep traffic flowing. These "local customs" may not be strictly legal, but you rarely will wind up with a ticket for it.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#164

Post by megablast » Mon, May 07, 2018, 10:09 PM UTC

forgotmypw wrote: post #133

uptown wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NPR had a story about how self-driving cars in Pittsburgh wouldn't be adhering to the "Pittsburgh-left": "Even harder for autonomous cars to master are local quirks; things like "the Pittsburgh left." That's a custom unique to the city that allows the first driver trying to make a left turn to do so before oncoming cars pass through an intersection. It's one thing that Emily Duff Bartel says Uber's fleet of self-driv…

This custom is prevalent in places other than Pittsburgh. It can also get you a citation if a cop sees it.

As it should, what a ridiculous thing to do.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#165

Post by cimmanom » Mon, May 07, 2018, 10:10 PM UTC

sdenton4 wrote: post #104

ars wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> get 5 9s reliability That's it? Humans have greater than 7 9's reliability when driving. (As measured by fatalities per time of driving, and assuming a fatality takes 5 minutes, and average speed is 30mph.) If the cause of a fatality is 10 seconds of failure, not 5 minutes, humans have greater than 9 9s of reliability. Math: 10 seconds / (1.13 / (30 miles/hour / 100 million miles)) Fatality rate is 1.13 per 100 mil…

Fatalities seems like a pretty low bar to measure failures by... I would prefer to measure reliability by reported accidents per 100k miles. This stat seems to be 183 per million miles in 2009, compared to 1.13 for fatalities per million miles. So quite enough to shave 7 9's down to 5ish...

Collisions with trees and with other vehicles? Or collisions with pedestrians? Maybe we're fine with five 9s of reliability with inanimate objects and with other 2-ton metal crash protection cages but prefer seven 9s with fragile unprotected human bodies (which are far more likely to end up as fatalities than just crashes).

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#166

Post by linker3000 » Mon, May 07, 2018, 10:10 PM UTC

nmca wrote: post #121

thegambit wrote: post #48

It seems like it was actually Uber who disabled the safety settings that were there to prevent this according to Volvo. "Uber Technologies Inc. disabled the standard collision-avoidance technology in the Volvo SUV that struck and killed a woman in Arizona last week, according to the auto-parts maker that supplied the vehicle’s radar and camera." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-26/uber-disa...

This whole line of reasoning frustrates me somewhat. The story of "Uber Disabled the Safety System" paints Uber out to be negligent for doing so. Outside of consideration of all the other facts (which unlike this one, do indeed suggest that Uber are to blame), this element of the story is not indicative of negligence. Of course they disabled the existing safety system - they were aiming to build a new, safer one that…

Seriously!?

The responsible position would be to retain the existing system in a passive standby mode, capable of overriding the active 'under test' one in the event certain safety/detection thresholds were exceeded.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#167

Post by davidgould » Mon, May 07, 2018, 10:10 PM UTC

hazardmat wrote: post #137

jakelazaroff wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was a bad call on the part of the police. You're only allowed to drive as fast as conditions permit. If it's dark enough that you can't avoid an obstacle by the time your headlights illuminate it, you need to slow down .

That's not really true. Thousands of deer get killed on the road every year, because deer aren't smart enough not to be an obstacle when it's dark. Do we therefore change all the speed limits at night? No. It's a driving risk taken, just like any other.

Those deer are killed because thousands of humans aren't smart enough to not overdrive their headlights so they hit obstacles in the dark. Hitting a deer is not a small thing. You will seriously damage your car, and may be severely injured or killed yourself if the deer is tall enough to come through the windshield. In open range country you can also hit a cow. In some areas you can hit a moose.

Do we therefore change all the speed limits at night?

No, but we shouldn't drive like idiots either. It's not just "a driving risk taken", it's reckless and negligent behaviour.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#168

Post by bsder » Mon, May 07, 2018, 10:11 PM UTC

bryanlarsen wrote: post #71

splouk wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or jaywalking will become more strictly enforced with policing or physical barriers. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/4/2/automated-vehic...

That's a very good argument but I don't think it will come to pass, for this reason: http://theoatmeal.com/pl/minor_differences/cutting_off There's something about driving that turns ordinary people into assholes. I've observed it in myself. Bus passengers are much more considerate, and I think that passengers in self-driving vehicles will behave like passengers, not like drivers. So if a pedestrian cuts them off the…

> There's something about driving that turns ordinary people into assholes.

Game theory with no further interaction so no consequence to defecting other than the immediate.

The problem is that there is always somebody willing to be a jerk to save 2 minutes since nobody wanted to be stuck in traffic. The only defense against that is "Do unto before done unto" and that turns everybody into jerks.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#169

Post by InitialLastName » Mon, May 07, 2018, 10:14 PM UTC

hazardmat wrote: post #137

jakelazaroff wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was a bad call on the part of the police. You're only allowed to drive as fast as conditions permit. If it's dark enough that you can't avoid an obstacle by the time your headlights illuminate it, you need to slow down .

That's not really true. Thousands of deer get killed on the road every year, because deer aren't smart enough not to be an obstacle when it's dark. Do we therefore change all the speed limits at night? No. It's a driving risk taken, just like any other.

> Do we therefore change all the speed limits at night?

No, but we legally require drivers to modulate their speed to suit the conditions.

> It's a driving risk taken, just like any other.

So generous of drivers to take up that risk to others.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#170

Post by [deleted] » Mon, May 07, 2018, 10:15 PM UTC

hazardmat wrote: post #150

favorited wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point isn't that speed limits need to change, it's that it is incumbent upon the driver to slow down if environmental conditions prevent them from traveling safely at the speed limit.

What is that supposed to mean? You can't have 100% safety at any speed. If it really is incumbent upon the driver to always drive at night in such a way that no collision can occur at all, then why not change the speed limit? My whole point is that it's not the driver's responsibility to account for every possible scenario. It can't be.

[deleted]