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

261–270 of 1001 posts

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#261

Post by KennyBlanken »

ralferoo wrote: post #112
wstrange wrote: post #71

Link to Cruise review of incident: https://getcruise.com/news/blog/2023/a-detailed-review-of-th...

Reading this, it rather seems like the AV wasn't at fault in the accident itself and handled itself well. However, after coming to a complete stop, while the pedestrian was still on the ground in front of it, it then started again and drove into the pedestrian and continued for another 20 feet pushing the pedestrian along (and presumably under) the car. They say it did this to leave the car in a safe place, but this…

> it then started again and drove into the pedestrian and continued for another 20 feet pushing the pedestrian along

I like how you're parroting Cruise's spin on this: the pedestrian was "pushed along", not "run over and then dragged."

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#262

Post by jowday »

labrador wrote: post #246
jowday wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They have this, by their own admission and from my personal experiences in the car. A detail you might be mistaken on - they’re not really fully driving the car remotely. They’re basically sitting in a call center answering questions for the car or plotting a course, or giving it the all clear to proceed if things are uncertain. And generally this only happens if the situation is one where the car can ‘safely’ stop and wait for a response. In situations like the one discussed here, the car doesn’t have time to wait for a response from a human operator, so it just does what it thinks is best locally.

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#263

Post by nfriedly »

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…

> ...San Francisco and also drives a LOT (10-20k miles per year...

I spent a year in the bay area, working in the city for about half of it. It completely destroyed any joy I got from driving. I've been back in Ohio for 10+ years now, and I still hate driving.

It was that bad then, and I hear it's only gotten worse.

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#264

Post by fkyoureadthedoc »

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

I don't think it's even VC brained, the average us NIMBY doesn't actually want anything to change with regards to zoning or public transit. They don't care that the closest place to buy anything is a 54 minute walk with 0 sidewalks, because it only takes 8 minutes to get there in their Tahoe.

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#265

Post by Animats »

Cruise started as a fake-it-til-you-make-it operation. See if you can find their first demo video. That mindset apparently continues.

Waymo has been very cautious. This turned out to be much harder than expected. Waymo's stats get better each year, and it looks like this is going to work.

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#266

Post by darkerside »

pj_mukh wrote: post #243
mips_avatar wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm pretty sure Cruise's statement worded this intentionally vaguely, and it's natural to assume they are trying to gloss over their responsibility in the most horrific part of the story.

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#267

Post by ryandrake »

Lonestar1440 wrote: post #202
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, Humans are flawed drivers. But that makes them an Excellent baseline, because the last thing we want to do is make things even worse. I've observed all the things you did (in fact, all of them on Sunday). But I don't do any of them, and you probably wouldn't either if you ever used a car. I'm comparing self-driving cars to an average Human, who truly does drive acceptably. Over 99% of people drive acceptably. Th…

Further, you kind of assume human drivers are going to do these dangerous things, so you can anticipate them. It's more important to be predictable than to be conservative/safe.

Stopping dead on a road with nobody in front of you because your AI detected a hazard might be objectively safe and conservative driving, but it is unpredictable and a driverless car that behaves this way is going to cause problems.

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#268

Post by bsder »

b33j0r wrote: post #142

I know that the geography of North America and the timing of industrialization basically made this a pipe dream… Yet, trying to create near-peer artificial human driving intelligence—just so cities can continue to be designed around horseless carriages, minivans, and truck nuts—well, that may not have been the best solution to the problem. Ideally, autonomous driving would be for “the edge” of a transportation networ…

> We shot ourselves in the foot because mass transportation in America has failed to impress us as much as a Jaguar XK or Jeep KJ, or whatever your Soul Car is.

As much as I'd like to agree with this, the fundamental problem is that most people in the US do not work at a single point in the city anymore.

That's the real problem. You don't get to connect existing enclaves. You have to build your mass transit, fund it at a loss for decades, make sure it doesn't get overrun with crime, and maybe after 10-20 years there will be enough housing and office space along the line in order to make it viable. Maybe.

Or you can throw down a couple more roads and let people figure out where to live, themselves.

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#269

Post by kelipso »

annexrichmond wrote: post #192
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... .

How many of those deaths per year are human drivers driving the same routes at the same hours in the same weather as Cruise vehicles? Without any normalization this comparison seems moot.

And how many are DUIs. They should really be comparing accident rates for sober drivers.

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#270

Post by robswc »

hbrav wrote: post #117
ravenstine wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is being able to read a book during your commute without getting assaulted or robbed.

The phenomenon of viewing public transit as somewhere that you'll be assaulted or robbed is an incredible indictment of the US. I don't know how true it is though.

Assaulted and robbed are the least of my worries. Its a small chance but its there. What I hate about public transit is the public part.

I've witnessed tons of anti-social behavior over the years taking the DC metro and honestly, have never been comfortable ever since I was a child and got stuck between two drunk men arguing after a baseball game. I was feeling claustrophobic and could even feel the spit hit my face. The car was packed and no room to really get away from it. I think its gotten better but I wouldn't know as I haven't used it in years.

Post reply on HN