Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck • Hacker News Board

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#351

Post by icebraining » Tue, May 08, 2018, 10:22 AM UTC

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…

it's the only way for any traffic to complete the turn

As someone else pointed out, you can do three right turns instead.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#352

Post by tremon » Tue, May 08, 2018, 10:25 AM UTC

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.

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.

Which is why you need to move onto the intersection as the light turns green -- you've now passed the traffic light, so once the oncoming traffic gets the red light, you are clear to turn.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#353

Post by icebraining » Tue, May 08, 2018, 10:48 AM UTC

8bitsrule wrote: post #332

splouk wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or jaywalking will become more strictly enforced with policing or physical barriers. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/4/2/automated-vehic...

The world is already overly car-centered. If cars can't see and stop for people, then they've become an expansion of that problem. I live in a place where, once you're off the curb on corners where there's no light, cars are required to slow/stop for you. Many people will voluntarily do that even if you're NOT off the curb yet. It feels like a courtesy. The scenario you're describing, OTOH, feels even more alienating…

Many people will voluntarily do that even if you're NOT off the curb yet. It feels like a courtesy.

Eh, as a pedestrian, I hate that. I have to conscientiously turn my back to avoid impeding the traffic when I don't want to pass!

Still, I agree with you; self-driving cars that can't be trusted to slow down and stop for pedestrians should not pass the licensing requirements. And not just for humans, either; we're not going to teach other animals to follow traffic laws any time soon. I've already seen too many cats killed by assholes speeding over the limit on residential streets.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#354

Post by icebraining » Tue, May 08, 2018, 10:49 AM UTC

Someone wrote: post #216

matte_black wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. You can never count on humans to change behavior to fit a technology. As soon as self-driving cars learn local customs, the customs will have been changed. Self-driving cars will always be 3 years away.

It may be worse. If cars are very good at avoiding colliding with pedestrians, why would pedestrians look out for cars at all before stepping onto a street? We may have to tweak the car’s software to be assertive, bordering aggressive, in busy neighborhoods, if the car is to make progress at all.

No. Let the passenger deal with that if they're annoyed. Machines should be always "humble". A human in front may be an inconsiderate jerk, or they may be trying to prevent the car from hitting something they're unlikely to detect.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#355

Post by sokoloff » Tue, May 08, 2018, 10:55 AM UTC

klibertp wrote: post #348

Ajedi32 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The oncoming traffic doesn't stop until the light turns red. Wait, why? No new car should enter the intersection when the lights turn to yellow. The yellow light should last long enough for everyone to be able to safely drive off the intersection, in orderly manner.

> No new car should enter the intersection when the lights turn to yellow.

Cars will obviously enter the intersection under a yellow. It's why we have a yellow.

Even if everyone wanted to stop for every yellow, at 35 mph with average reaction time, cars will travel a minimum of 100 feet after the yellow phase starts. Some of those cars will enter the intersection.

With a typical 4 second yellow, some drivers don't even choose to stop for the first half of the yellow, of course.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#356

Post by userbinator » Tue, May 08, 2018, 11:01 AM UTC

c22 wrote: post #304

userbinator wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 goin…

Because the train is on tracks.

That doesn't change the fact that pedestrians are still far more agile than cars.

(Anyone else want to explain the downvotes?)

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#357

Post by kd5bjo » Tue, May 08, 2018, 11:04 AM UTC

klibertp wrote: post #348

Ajedi32 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The oncoming traffic doesn't stop until the light turns red. Wait, why? No new car should enter the intersection when the lights turn to yellow. The yellow light should last long enough for everyone to be able to safely drive off the intersection, in orderly manner.

In the states, there's often a 1-second all red cycle to let the intersection clear, because drivers treat a yellow light as a green that's about to expire. Even with this, I often see 2 or 3 cars enter the intersection after I already have a green signal.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#358

Post by icebraining » Tue, May 08, 2018, 11:05 AM UTC

frankharv wrote: post #60

rockostrich wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is already happening in the trucking industry. Self-driving trucks are being developed to be able to drive 99% of the trip that's on highways and then human drivers take over for the local 1%. To make it easier, transfer hubs are being built near cities off major highways to make everything easier and non-disruptive. The same thing could be done with cars without the need for the transfer hubs and it basically i…

I can't beleive they would do a trail run with an automous truck weighing 80,000lbs barreling down the freeway. This revolution should have started with mundane tasks, such as city street sweepers and perhaps garbage trucks. Vehicles that move slow on a predefined path in the night. Then advance to faster moving objects like taxis. Just like the DARPA Grand Challenge that started this mess. Many of those vehicles wer…

This revolution should have started with mundane tasks, such as city street sweepers and perhaps garbage trucks.

It has. The EasyMile EZ10 (a passenger shuttle) has already been deployed in a lot of places, for example.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#359

Post by icebraining » Tue, May 08, 2018, 11:17 AM UTC

c22 wrote: post #302

eric_h wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I don't see your eyes I think you really mean if you don't make eye contact. Eye contact is a two-person activity. How does an autonomous car make eye contact with a person?

Something like this could be developed. For instance, the car could have an array of lights on its grill (think Knight Rider) that track in the direction of detected obstacles, if you don't see a light facing towards you then you know you are not detected and to use caution. Alternately a light on the front of the car could turn from yellow to blue to indicate its intent to yield.

A small screen (or more) might be a better option. It seems Mercedes made a concept version of the Smart with one, and the cars launched by Drive.ai already have them.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#360

Post by arrrg » Tue, May 08, 2018, 11:18 AM UTC

klibertp wrote: post #349

WillPostForFood wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Entering an intersection on yellow isn’t illegal in Washington, California, Texas, or any state that I am aware of.

Ah, ok, that explains it... It is illegal to enter an intersection on yellow in most of Europe, I think. The yellow light is for driving off of intersection, is what I've been taught. It's only allowed to enter the intersection if you're going really fast and the light turns when you're really close to the intersection, but even then the cops are likely to question you if they see it.

That‘s not the case at all in Germany (most of all because you cannot even see the lights anymore once you entered the intersection since in Germany they are at the beginning of the intersection, not the opposite end). Which European country are you talking about?

In driving school I was taught to generally be ready to brake when approaching a light, but to also then pick a reasonable point of no return (depending on speed, maybe a couple dozen meters before the light) beyond which I would not be braking, no matter what the light does. That way braking should never ever feel anything close to emergency braking you do when there‘s an actual unforeeen obstacle. It should always be smooth.

Also, when making a left turn at an intersection in Germany you drive into the intersection and then you wait for the oncoming traffic to clear. At this point you cannot even see the lights. The only thing that is relevant for you is to wait for oncoming traffic to clear up (or if you obviously see they have stopped since the light has since turned red and have verified optimally by eye contact that you are free to go).

Other traffic from left and right obviously have to wait until you have cleared the intersection even if they have a green light.