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

261–270 of 445 posts

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#261

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

sparky_z wrote: post #173
hnrodey wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm from near Pittsburgh and I'd hardly call this a custom. It's just what you do when you're in a hurry and have pole-position in the turning lane...

Not sure what you mean. "Just what you do" when you're from a specific area is pretty much the textbook definition of a "custom".

I think the parent's argument is that it's not a custom to think of this as really accepted behavior. That is, an agressive driver turning left in a hurry may gun it, and the driver going straight may let him through to avoid an accident, but it's not "custom" to the point that that word implies it's accepted.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#262

Post by Ajedi32 »

ubernostrum wrote: post #258
Ajedi32 wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I thought we were talking about the Pittsburgh-left. That's not what you're describing. The Pittsburgh-left occurs immediately after the light turns green, when both the oncoming traffic and the person making the turn have a green light.

My point was, why do you need to do that when you can just enter the intersection during the green light and complete your turn once the light turns red?

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#263

Post by userbinator »

jarfil wrote: post #189
Zenbit_UX wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your examples are absurd. Would you program a car to assume that all New Yorkers won't Jay walk? How about all people in Tempe will rush into the streets? Cultural context definetly matters, but for none of the reasons you've mentioned. Writing specific use cases is insane for more reasons than I should have to point out to you. What if someone from tempe is on vacation in NY, should they be in danger because they fo…

Or... make Jay walking punishable by death, and autonomous cars won't need to stop, or even look for random pedestrians.

This, absolutely this. It's always bothered me why pedestrians seem to be universally given the right of way, when the irrefutable laws of physics dictate otherwise: a human, although having a lower speed, has a far wider view of its surroundings, and can change direction much quicker than a car whose driver is relatively slow to react and has a much more restricted view. In a collision, the bare human is always going to lose.

To take another example, it's pretty well accepted that it's entirely your fault if you drive into the path of an oncoming train and get killed. Then why does it seem so controversial that the driver should not be at fault if you get hit because you didn't look and just stepped into the road expecting the oncoming car to avoid you?

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#264

Post by userbinator »

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.

In other words, despite the traffic lights not having an official "left turn only" phase, the traffic has naturally created one. I've seen this in China too.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#265

Post by FireBeyond »

hazardmat wrote: post #153
jacquesm wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A distracted driver has the option to tell the police they were distracted. Or are you of the opinion that since the woman was dead it didn't matter anymore?

First of all, in this scenario, the woman would have at least shared some of the blame. Second of all, what are the odds that a human who just killed a woman would admit even to themselves that they were the one to blame in such an accident? Practically zero. Cognitive dissonance won't allow it. In their minds, they weren't distracted, at least not enough to take any of the blame.

> Second of all, what are the odds that a human who just killed a woman would admit even to themselves that they were the one to blame in such an accident? Practically zero.

As a paramedic who sees fatality accidents? Hardly. "Oh my god, I've killed someone!" is a fairly common statement, or paraphrasing.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#266

Post by zamalek »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #256
NeutronStar wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I've found that Seattle drivers are unusually respectful of amber lights - probably because getting pulled over for abusing it is more common than never.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#267

Post by ubernostrum »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #262
ubernostrum wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I thought we were talking about the Pittsburgh-left. That's not what you're describing. The Pittsburgh-left occurs immediately after the light turns green, when both the oncoming traffic and the person making the turn have a green light. My point was, why do you need to do that when you can just enter the intersection during the green light and complete your turn once the light turns red?

Whether you do it after the light goes red (illegal) or immediately on green (also illegal), it's the same underlying problem: the intersection needs a protected left turn in the signal sequence.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#268

Post by gnulinux »

Maybestring wrote: post #72
Symmetry wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're overselling the extent of the difficulty here. People from out of state usually manage to get through New York, pedestrians and all, without getting into an accident. A car won't get through a block as quickly as it could if it merely obeys the laws makes sure it doesn't run into anybody. I'm sure this will cause great joy among people crossing the street and consternation among other drivers but the p…

>I think you're overselling the extent of the difficulty here. People from out of state usually manage to get through New York, pedestrians and all, without getting into an accident. At this point, "it's easy for a person to do it" is probably better evidence that it's a hard problem in AI. In this case, I believe it's an inverse learning problem. We observe other agents acting in an environment, deduce their policy,…

I always drive differently, more cautiously and slowly while near colleges. Especially during the night. It is much more likely for college students to be intoxicated and even if they are paying attention they might not be capable of realizing a car is coming etc... This is also true near elementary schools, but not because they might be intoxicated but because little children are more likely not to pay attention. I really jope self-driving cars are trained for such nuances.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#269

Post by in_cahoots »

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 seriously think you need to retake your drivers ed class. It’s entirely possible to drive at a speed at night that ensures you won’t hit an object immediately in front of you. That’s the textbook definition of not overdriving your headlights. Most nights aren’t pitch black thanks to street lamps, which is why you can drive at a reasonable speed. And in the cases where the night is pitch black, you can use your high beams when there’s no oncoming traffic. If there is oncoming traffic and you can’t stop in the distance illuminated by your headlights then, yes, it’s incumbent on you to slow down. These are basic rules of the road, not some unobtainable standard to strive toward.
Post reply on HN