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

171–180 of 205 posts

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

#171

Post by lamontcg »

jhugo wrote: post #17

> “Over one hundred people lose their lives every day on American roadways, and countless others are badly injured, Cruise said in a statement sent via email. I’m so tired of this angle being accepted at face value. Current driverless cars are not even capable of safely navigating situations that below-average human drivers rarely struggle with, like avoiding driving into clearly marked wet concrete, or not crashing…

> I’m so tired of this angle being accepted at face value. Current driverless cars are not even capable of safely navigating situations that below-average human drivers rarely struggle with, like avoiding driving into clearly marked wet concrete, or not crashing into an emergency vehicle that has its sirens and lights blazing.

The incident was reported as the Cruise robotaxi being struck by an emergency vehicle. It sounds less like the car drove into the big vehicle with the flashing red lights and more like the vehicle wasn't visible and the robotaxi drive into the intersection and was struck. This is a common failure mode of below average human drivers as well.

I agree that its a failure mode that needs to be eliminated and looks pretty bad on Cruise for not anticipating and testing this, but that is a situation that below-average human drivers absolutely do struggle with.

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

#173

Post by agensaequivocum »

gjm11 wrote: post #168
oezi wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When they did such things for instance in Beijing, the wealthy just bought two cars to cover either day.

I assume most people aren't wealthy enough to do that, so the measure still reduces the number of cars on the road and the amount of petrol consumed. And the net effect is to transfer wealth from rich people to all the people involved in making cars. Sounds like a win to me.

I think I understand. You hate poor people.

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

#175

Post by blibble »

jfoster wrote: post #157
blibble wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

as a vehicle operator: if someone put a cone on my bonnet, then I just sat there blocking the the highway I'd expect to be the one fined

quite why this is different because an unfit for purpose driverless vehicle is involved, I don't know

the company operating the vehicle should be the one fined for blocking the highway

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

#176

Post by panarky »

bombcar wrote: post #114
chaboud wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An unlicensed driver in the Mission plowed into me on my motorcycle because he panicked and slammed on the gas. Cruise cars, conversely, generally result in close calls due to aborted lane changes, cutting me off, or absurd double parking, but I can safely assume that a Cruise car will sit at a stop sign for minutes on end of other drivers don't give it a turn. Cruise vehicles operate like over-cautious student drive…

You also have the situation where an assumed perfect car that drives exactly as you expect, but once in a million goes just kills you - is likely to be much less annoying (unless you’re dead) than a car that every single time you interact with it does weird things, even though it never kills you at all

>>>> Current driverless cars are not even capable of ...

If Brand A has single-digit massive fuckups per ten million miles driven, while Brand B has quintuple-digit massive fuckups per ten million miles driven, it's weird to argue that all brands are massively fucking up so much worse than humans.

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

#177

Post by jfoster »

blibble wrote: post #175
jfoster wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

as a vehicle operator: if someone put a cone on my bonnet, then I just sat there blocking the the highway I'd expect to be the one fined quite why this is different because an unfit for purpose driverless vehicle is involved, I don't know the company operating the vehicle should be the one fined for blocking the highway

They don't put the cone on the bonnet for no reason. They do it because they know what the likely outcome will be.

In a similar way, if you booby trap a vehicle such that it might surprise a human driver in some way whilst they are driving, causing them to potentially have an accident, the crime you are committing is not simply that you're surprising someone by tampering with their property, but you might be doing it with a specific intent to cause an accident.

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

#178

Post by jfoster »

Kamq wrote: post #162
jfoster wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think it depends. To compare it back to the phone phreaker example, putting up a single cone that blocks something is roughly the equivalent of cutting a phone line. That is to say, probably not hacking. But what about when you add a level of complexity and creativity? Say, putting up a series of cones that trap the car in an endless circle?

I don't really think the semantics matter too much. Sure, call the circle of cones a hack. The point is, it's criminal & likely causes a degree of chaos well beyond a simple prank.

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

#179

Post by serf »

SanderNL wrote: post #137
gizmondo wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everyone, including you, has read at least one text while driving. No.

Yes. You are just in denial.

Absolutely ridiculous.

I have not and will not touch my phone while driving, and I obnoxiously ridicule those close to me that choose to do so near me.

It sounds like YOU'RE in denial and trying to convince yourself that it's absolutely unquestionably ubiquitous -- it's not, and it's a danger to yourself and even to those others on the road that made better choices.

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

#180

Post by blibble »

jfoster wrote: post #177
blibble wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

as a vehicle operator: if someone put a cone on my bonnet, then I just sat there blocking the the highway I'd expect to be the one fined quite why this is different because an unfit for purpose driverless vehicle is involved, I don't know the company operating the vehicle should be the one fined for blocking the highway

They don't put the cone on the bonnet for no reason. They do it because they know what the likely outcome will be. In a similar way, if you booby trap a vehicle such that it might surprise a human driver in some way whilst they are driving, causing them to potentially have an accident, the crime you are committing is not simply that you're surprising someone by tampering with their property, but you might be doing it…

> the crime you are committing is not simply that you're surprising someone by tampering with their property, but you might be doing it with a specific intent to cause an accident.

this is nice rhetoric and all but doesn't apply at all in this situation

nothing has been tampered with: the cone can be removed and having done so the vehicle will be indistinguishable from before it was placed (no property damage)

the "attack" keeps the vehicle in its safest possible state (that in which it can't move) so there is no intent to cause an accident

and you still have yet to point out which law is being broken (I suspect because there isn't one), so it is a crime?

however the company may be able to go after you in a civil court for lost revenue/reputation

Post reply on HN