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

California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 1001 posts

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#241

Post by panarky »

moralestapia wrote: post #194
RC_ITR wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with what you said, BUT From my perspective as a person who lives in San Francisco and also bikes a LOT: human driver also do not perform acceptably. I counted 14 cars without headlights on after sunset on a 2 mile bike ride yesterday. I counted 5 cars parked in either a bike lane or active traffic. 2 cars took blind rights (no stops) onto Polk from various alleyways. This was a good day, FWIW. Cruises have o…

Yes, but replacing something shitty with something shittier will not improve the status quo. The bar for AI should be way higher than just "outperform mediocre humans".

> way higher

Even 10% less grievous bodily harm would be a massive improvement.

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#242

Post by riscy »

mariusmg wrote: post #181
yegle wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "The AV braked aggressively before impact and because it detected a collision, it attempted to pull over to avoid further safety issues," Cruise added. "When the AV tried to pull over, it continued before coming to a final stop, pulling the pedestrian forward. Our thoughts continue to be with the victim as we hope for a rapid and complete recovery." This looks like Cruise's fault, dragging a pedestrian while pullin…

>This looks like Cruise's fault Imagine having to write the code that "detects" if a pedestrain is caught underneath the car

or rather, collect training data on how to best handle running a pedestrian over.

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#243

Post by pj_mukh »

mips_avatar wrote: post #183
pj_mukh wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did Cruise release the video, its not clear to me a human driver would be better (other than some textual descriptions of the event)? The (human) person who actually caused the crash is still at large, and the bay area (SF + Oakland) still continues to one of the municipalities with negligble traffic enforcement [1] and massively dangerous (human) driving behavior [2]. So the city and DMV focussing their efforts on t…

This woman got dragged 20 feet by the car after the collision, and then the car rolled over her leg and left her pinned to the ground until the fire department came and removed the wheel to get her out. The cruise vehicle wasn't at fault for the initial accident, but the subsequent damage it caused was entirely the fault of the autonomous vehicle. A person would have stopped and helped the pedestrian.

“The woman got dragged 20feet”

With respect this part is not clear. Only that the woman moved 20feet.

The DMV has not made clear whether she moved 20feet from the location of original Collision (ie with the human driver) or she was dragged 20feet as the cruise car kept driving. They’ve let the audience fill in the blanks and we’ve collectively come to the more exciting conclusion.

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#244

Post by KennyBlanken »

mariusmg wrote: post #181
yegle wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "The AV braked aggressively before impact and because it detected a collision, it attempted to pull over to avoid further safety issues," Cruise added. "When the AV tried to pull over, it continued before coming to a final stop, pulling the pedestrian forward. Our thoughts continue to be with the victim as we hope for a rapid and complete recovery." This looks like Cruise's fault, dragging a pedestrian while pullin…

>This looks like Cruise's fault Imagine having to write the code that "detects" if a pedestrain is caught underneath the car

Or you can not code your autonomous vehicle to try to move after getting into a collision, because if someone is caught under the car, you shouldn't try to move the car anyway.

It's hilarious that the fucking things park themselves if you put a traffic cone on the hood, but if they get into a crash, especially one with a pedestrian? BEEP BOOP MUST MOVE!

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#245

Post by _2d30 »

Lonestar1440 wrote: post #120

From my perspective as a person who lives in San Francisco and also drives a LOT (10-20k miles per year, and many small drives within the city): Cruise cars do not perform acceptably. They manage to avoid collisions by driving extremely conservatively, but the way they traverse, say, a left turn against traffic is absurd. They slow everyone down, including emergency vehicles and public transit, by performing far belo…

My day-to-day experience with Cruises on the road is much better, mile for mile, than with human drivers.

Cruise's failures, in my view, have come broadly at the long tail where their cars stall out entirely in the road due and it cascades to other Cruises.

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#246

Post by labrador »

jowday wrote: post #196
labrador wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a friend who interviewed at Waymo to be a safety driver. He told me they have a human at command central monitoring the car and the safety driver, talking back and forth. I see no reason why they would remove the human monitor after no longer using safety drivers. For liability reasons at least. My point is I'm not sure Waymo cars can actually be considered self- driving since they have a remote human standing…

Any actually-deployed driverless car has the same setup with remote operators - Cruise, Waymo, Zoox (if they've managed to deploy yet).

Seems like Cruise doesn't actually have this. If so, why aren't we hearing a report from the remote driver? Why did the remote driver let the car drag a woman? Why do remote drivers let Cruise cars screw up over and over again, block emergency vehicles, etc...

If I'm right, then Cruise will have to add remote drivers and then we can call them remotely operated cars instead of driver-less cars.

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#247

Post by rob74 »

_ea1k wrote: post #151
yegle wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "The AV braked aggressively before impact and because it detected a collision, it attempted to pull over to avoid further safety issues," Cruise added. "When the AV tried to pull over, it continued before coming to a final stop, pulling the pedestrian forward. Our thoughts continue to be with the victim as we hope for a rapid and complete recovery." This looks like Cruise's fault, dragging a pedestrian while pullin…

Yes, and it sounds like a fairly fundamental flaw. Does the car have sensors that can determine pulling over is the wrong thing to do in this situation? In general, getting out of the way is the right course of action, but this clearly shows that there are exceptions. I'm not sure that the vehicles are currently equipped for differentiating to even be possible.

In case of a serious accident, especially one where a person has come to harm, not blocking traffic shouldn't be the main concern anymore IMHO...

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#248

Post by dekhn »

tschellenbach wrote: post #107

43k deaths per year due to human drivers. DMV should stop sticking their heads in the sand. https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state... .

BTW, that's 100 million miles driven by humans before somebody gets killed by a car (the stat includes peds as well as vehicle occupants).

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#249

Post by RC_ITR »

mumblemumble wrote: post #230
RC_ITR wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with what you said, BUT From my perspective as a person who lives in San Francisco and also bikes a LOT: human driver also do not perform acceptably. I counted 14 cars without headlights on after sunset on a 2 mile bike ride yesterday. I counted 5 cars parked in either a bike lane or active traffic. 2 cars took blind rights (no stops) onto Polk from various alleyways. This was a good day, FWIW. Cruises have o…

In a sane world, the existence of shitty human drivers would not be an excuse for lowering the bar for self-driving cars. It would be a reason to start treating a license to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways as a privilege rather than a right.

Who is asking for a lower bar for Cruises? I'm asking for a higher bar than humans!

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#250

Post by spaced-out »

cp9 wrote: post #122

if people weren't VC brained they would realize that the way to prevent traffic deaths isn't to build fancy self driving cars, it's to invest in safer, more pedestrian friendly infrastructure and use the boring technology that already exists to get people where they want to go. the future is on buses and trains and bikes and pedestrian friendly 15 minute communities

>more pedestrian friendly infrastructure and use the boring technology that already exists to get people where they want to go. the future is on buses and trains and bikes and pedestrian friendly 15 minute communities

This is a political problem though, it's not something businesses can solve.

Post reply on HN