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

Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 445 posts

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#251

Post by anonymouz »

hazardmat wrote: post #231
anonymouz wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um, do you have a driver's license? Nobody said anything about 100% safety in some provable way. But certainly it is very much the driver's responsibility to pick a safe speed. Driver's Ed (at least in most? EU countries) teaches that the posted speed limit is just that, the maximum legally allowed speed. As a driver you -- and nobody else -- are responsible for picking a safe speed depending on the environmental con…

What is that supposed to mean ? What's prudent and what is safe? The reality is that driving at night isn't safe at all and that people often can't avoid collision from an obstacle suddenly appearing at night. Maybe if they drove at 15MPH at all times, it would be possible in 99% of cases, but in practice we don't expect that . Hence, we have collisions. Not because the drivers are always guilty of recklessness, but…

I already told you what is safe: Your headlamps must illuminate a distance within which you can stop (including reaction time). With 50km/h this is ~40m. This is a distance that your low-beams will illuminate even in a dark night. If you want to drive faster you need high-beams or some other sources of light (street lamps).

If you don't overdrive your headlamps than objects will not just "suddenly" appear in front of you unless they are doing something genuinely stupid (e.g. jumping in front of the car). In this case the policy or a judge will decide whether you were driving prudent or safe.

We have collisions (during day and night) mainly because people don't pay attention or don't follow some basic rules (visibility, distance to car in front,...). This isn't rocket science. Don't blame fate or "general risk" if you cause a collision.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#252

Post by tlrobinson »

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.

Paradoxically, in some places horns are used much more liberally and if you spend much time there that's the feeling you start getting from a honk. Like a "hey just wanted to let you know I'm behind you".

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#253

Post by noobermin »

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…

The entire thing that the ML fanboys need to figure out is the entire underlying logic of ML and statistical methods in general is that averages wash away quirks. In fact, that is their power and what people who traditionally deal with numbers know and use daily when we utilize averaging. So, ML and statistically derived math will work in the typical case but will not deal with exceptions well. This is why people (people whom I've found are NOT actual researchers) who are predicting we'll all be jobless by 2050 need to chill it out and realize the limits of current statistical methods.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#254

Post by stillsut »

danenania wrote: post #250
justicezyx wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am rather confused: Should the car always respond by slow down as the mandatary response when there is object in front? Are you implying that the algorithm would conclude that because it's unlikely that there is an object in that circumstance, it is ok to disapprove its own observation that there is some thing in front of the car? That sounds utterly nonsensical.

Exactly. I'd expect collision-prevention to have absolute priority over any other system. It should not be possible for any logic bug or combination of environmental factors to make the car run into a large object in its field of vision. There's no need for statistics here--an overriding 'don't run into stuff' rule will suffice. If there's truly no possible route to avoid some collision and therefore the car needs to…

> I'd expect collision-prevention to have absolute priority ..to [not] make the car run into a large object in its field of vision.

This is a good point.

But I think we've all placed our "toes over the curb" with a car hurtling towards us in preparation to cross the street as soon as the car has passed. No system can stop at each instance of this, nor can it recover past the point-of-no-return created each time this event occurs.

What constitutes "the curb" is subjective when it's not a raised sidewalk. Surely you don't have to be "on the grass" of a multilane high speed road but merely somewhere on the shoulder to claim expected pedestrian lane status. But that (may!) also imply you're an 'awaiting street crosser' not an 'engaged street crosser'. That's where the high level stats comes in.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#255

Post by [deleted] »

anonymouz wrote: post #251
hazardmat wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is that supposed to mean ? What's prudent and what is safe? The reality is that driving at night isn't safe at all and that people often can't avoid collision from an obstacle suddenly appearing at night. Maybe if they drove at 15MPH at all times, it would be possible in 99% of cases, but in practice we don't expect that . Hence, we have collisions. Not because the drivers are always guilty of recklessness, but…

I already told you what is safe: Your headlamps must illuminate a distance within which you can stop (including reaction time). With 50km/h this is ~40m. This is a distance that your low-beams will illuminate even in a dark night. If you want to drive faster you need high-beams or some other sources of light (street lamps). If you don't overdrive your headlamps than objects will not just "suddenly" appear in front of…

[deleted]

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#256

Post by Ajedi32 »

NeutronStar wrote: post #248
WillPostForFood wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is legal to pull into the intersection on green or yellow, and wait until it is clear (often when the light turns red) to turn left in Seattle. It is the correct/legal way to make a left turn. Otherwise you are just going to sit there blocking traffic for multiple cycles during busy times.

That's why you go during the yellow. Cars are stopping at the new red. You then go left before the cars getting the new green start moving.

The oncoming traffic doesn't stop until the light turns red. When the light is yellow, they're actually more likely to _speed up_ in order to "make the light" rather than stop. So when the light inevitably turns red and you're in the middle of the intersection, do you either:

a) Just sit there, in the middle of the intersection, blocking traffic.

b) Attempt to back up, hoping there are no other cars behind you in the left turn lane blocking your path.

c) Continue through the intersection.

Unless the law says "never stop in the intersection in the first place", I can't imagine it enforcing any option other than c.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#257

Post by Ajedi32 »

ubernostrum wrote: post #239
seattle_spring wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure that's just an asshole thing, not a "local quirk." It's like saying not using your turn signal is a funny quirk of BMW drivers, or going 55 in a 70 in the left lane in a Prius.

This type of left turn is less an "asshole thing" and more a "drivers compensating for poor design" thing. Typically, the "Pittsburgh left" is used in places where there should be a protected left turn as part of the signal cycle, but there isn't, and at times of high traffic flow it's the only way for any traffic to complete the turn (since waiting for oncoming traffic to clear on a green essentially means waiting u…

Won't the oncoming traffic clear once the light turns red? That's usually enough for the 2-3 cars waiting in the intersection to complete their turn.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#258

Post by ubernostrum »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #257
ubernostrum wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This type of left turn is less an "asshole thing" and more a "drivers compensating for poor design" thing. Typically, the "Pittsburgh left" is used in places where there should be a protected left turn as part of the signal cycle, but there isn't, and at times of high traffic flow it's the only way for any traffic to complete the turn (since waiting for oncoming traffic to clear on a green essentially means waiting u…

Won't the oncoming traffic clear once the light turns red? That's usually enough for the 2-3 cars waiting in the intersection to complete their turn.

The usual case for this is a light where left-turning traffic must wait for oncoming traffic to clear, but at certain times of day oncoming traffic never clears. The only gap in oncoming traffic occurs when the oncoming traffic has a red light. But the left-turning traffic also has a red at that point.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#259

Post by dabbledash »

chcknsammich wrote: post #176
megablast wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As it should, what a ridiculous thing to do.

Says the person who has never seen the ridiculous thing that is single lane road deadlock.

Pull into the intersection and go when it’s clear (on yellow or red). Gunning it so you can cut off oncoming traffic is ridiculous.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#260

Post by Izkata »

thereisnospork wrote: post #207
maxsilver wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like the opposite of that -- letting the left turn car go before both sides move, rather than after both sides finish. The behaviour you just described is what everyone does in Michigan. The Pittsburgh left sounds friendlier, but more risk prone to people who don't expect it or respect it.

Correct, although the creep and go after the light is also practiced. Main reason for the Pittsburgh left's popularity is that there are a number of roads in and around the city where during rush hour it's otherwise impossible to ever make a left and have no turn lane.

> and have no turn lane.

Urgh, that's something missing from the other comments. Now it makes sense to me.

Post reply on HN