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

191–200 of 205 posts

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

#191

Post by whimsicalism »

bombcar wrote: post #115
bluGill wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assertiveness is a bad thing in drivers. Sure you wait longer for others to do the right thing, but you also don't force crashes because of your bad driving.

It’s more expectedness. I find CA drivers to be very assertive, meaning they will accelerate to pass you while joining the freeway; in the Midwest people will slow down when merging to be polite, which causes many more issues.

Shows how subjective it is - from my Boston/DC perspective, CA drivers are ridiculously diffident

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

#192

Post by [deleted] »

lopkeny12ko wrote: post #165

The amount of mental gymnastics in the comments here to justify the Cruise vehicle's actions baffles me. Emergency vehicles have right of way, always, in the USA. This is non-negotiable, especially if sirens are blaring. It does not matter if other vehicles have a green light.

[deleted]

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

#193

Post by Kamq »

jfoster wrote: post #190
Kamq wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That did not seem to be the point of the original post that I responded to. Specifically, it seemed to imply that anything that was criminal could not be hacking. The legal status of something, seems completely orthogonal to hacking to me.

That wasn't my point in the original post. Obviously overlap between those two things is possible.

Then I completely misread the post. In my defense I went back and re-read it, and it still looks that way. But, y'know, tone and text and all that. I could always be wrong.

What was the point then?

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

#194

Post by nuker »

treis wrote: post #133
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…

>I don't understand why authorities allow self-driving cars to beta test out in public Because self driving cars will save lives in the long run and are potentially the largest QOL improvement of my lifetime.

Not in your lifetime.

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

#195

Post by bobbylarrybobby »

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.

You are in denial. Plenty of people understand the weight of sitting behind the wheel and have the self control to devote the attention that driving deserves. If you don't have the self control, you should admit it and try to better yourself. But don't try to pretend that no human has surpassed you at the task of driving without glancing at a phone. Many have.

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

#196

Post by bobbylarrybobby »

avree wrote: post #147
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…

A human driver killed a 4-year girl and her mother this week. How many 4-year olds has Cruise killed? My point is that picking false equivalencies and anecdotal evidence doesn't work, in both directions.

In fairness, cruise is smart enough to not even attempt to unleash their cars on areas challenging enough to cause the death of a 4yo. If they did, who knows what would happen.

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

#197

Post by jfoster »

Kamq wrote: post #193
jfoster wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That wasn't my point in the original post. Obviously overlap between those two things is possible.

Then I completely misread the post. In my defense I went back and re-read it, and it still looks that way. But, y'know, tone and text and all that. I could always be wrong. What was the point then?

The point was that it's a stupid and harmful crime. Calling it a hack makes it sound like a clever harmless prank. The point is about the characterization of it, not about what hacks can and cannot be.

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

#199

Post by lancesells »

Retric wrote: post #113
hef19898 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that driverless cars are slim minority on our roads, if they exist at all, failure modes actually do matter a lot. Human drivwr failure modes are what everybody is used to, and trained by everyday life to cope with. The radom, unpredictable stuff driverless cars do is in itsrlf dangerous from that perspective.

This isn’t the kind of thing you need to theorize about when there’s real world data to look at. American drivers have 13.5 deaths per billion vehicle miles, you can try and adjust that for conditions etc but people still fuck up driving good cars in nearly perfect conditions. The fully autonomous cars without safety drivers haven’t yet crossed the threshold to compare fatalities, but you can compare vs the 5 million…

I think the jury is still out since these cars are deployed in very specific, limited environments. In my opinion you need to compare only the areas they are driving in vs the accidents in only those areas. If they don't use freeways or specific streets, or drive in the rain, than those needed to be excluded in the data.

There are other factors like if they make unintended stops, cause traffic, etc. that don't get marked as accidents.

I would love it if they all worked and saved lives but I'm not yet sold on this.

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

#200

Post by SanderNL »

serf wrote: post #179
SanderNL wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You must be fun at parties. It was in jest.

I know that’s not-done around here, but I must admit it makes the eventual slip up just slightly more delicious.

Post reply on HN