Live data from Hacker News

Google self-driving car crashes were covered up

salon.com

21–28 of 28 posts

Re: Google self-driving car crashes were covered up

#21

How does a man require multiple surgeries to his spine from an accident but the company paying for those surgeries claims the accident isn’t known? That’s about as amazing as Hollywood accounting.

> That’s about as amazing as Hollywood accounting.

Hollywood accounting does not kill or maim.

Re: Google self-driving car crashes were covered up

#22
post #6

Did Google pay off the Camry driver? If I was pushed into an accident by a car with company decals and a sensor suite on top [1], I'd definitely include this when reporting the accident. It's an incredible story, and I'm not sure whether I say that in it's literal or figurative meaning. (Note that the author of the article is Charles Duhigg, a Pulitzer-price winning journalist - so it's not just a story posted by som…

> Did Google pay off the Camry driver?

The Camry driver was either absolutely or co-equally required to yield (TIL that despite the DMV Driver Handbook saying the former about freeway merges, there's signficant debate over whether that or equal responsibility is a correct interpretation of the Vehicle Code.)

> Note that the author of the article is Charles Duhigg, a Pulitzer-price winning journalist

No, it's Nicole Karlis, a Salon staff writer on tech, health, and gender politics who has not won a Pulitzer.

Now, the article is a sensationalized rehash of an incident from of a New Yorker article by Charles Duhigg, but he is not the author of the article directly at issue.

Re: Google self-driving car crashes were covered up

#23
post #6

Did Google pay off the Camry driver? If I was pushed into an accident by a car with company decals and a sensor suite on top [1], I'd definitely include this when reporting the accident. It's an incredible story, and I'm not sure whether I say that in it's literal or figurative meaning. (Note that the author of the article is Charles Duhigg, a Pulitzer-price winning journalist - so it's not just a story posted by som…

What I understood from the article is that they left the scene without reporting it. There was another incident they never reported. The other driver was undocumented and he also preferred not to report.

> The other driver was undocumented

“unlicensed”, per the article. “undocumented” in US parlance, referring to an individual, usually refers to immigration status; the article only indicates this driver had no driver's license.

Re: Google self-driving car crashes were covered up

#24
post #18
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The other driver was undocumented and he also preferred not to report. I don't live in the US, so I don't know - but is that common? To me, it sounds like a significant accident, and I fail to understand why it wouldn't be reported.

The other driver was living in the US illegally, so he cut his losses to avoid the risk of deportation.

> The other driver was living in the US illegally

The article only says he was unlicensed; the upthread poster converted that to “undocumented”.

Re: Google self-driving car crashes were covered up

#25
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Playing the devils advocate here: There was (apparently) no physical contact between the cars, so one could just tell a different story about the type of accident, or just leave out that the Camry then pinwheeled into the median. (Reason for lying about it could be that they drove the car in autonomous mode on 'forbidden routes' and feared repercussions). Having said that - I doubt that's how things happened.

'pinwheeled into the median' sounds like loosing control... That only is likley to happen if someone hits someone else...

An oversteer to avoid a hazard followed by loss of control (especially exacerbated by some kind of panic reaction) could do it.

Re: Google self-driving car crashes were covered up

#26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I understood from the article is that they left the scene without reporting it. There was another incident they never reported. The other driver was undocumented and he also preferred not to report.

> The other driver was undocumented “unlicensed”, per the article. “undocumented” in US parlance, referring to an individual, usually refers to immigration status; the article only indicates this driver had no driver's license.

You're right, it was 'unlicensed' rather than 'undocumented'.

Re: Google self-driving car crashes were covered up

#27
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other driver was living in the US illegally, so he cut his losses to avoid the risk of deportation.

> The other driver was living in the US illegally The article only says he was unlicensed; the upthread poster converted that to “undocumented”.

Sorry for perpetuating falsehood.

Similar issue of legal repercussions, but in the larger context of the current political environment, worlds apart.

Post reply on HN