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

San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 504 posts

Re: San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

#361

Post by dont__panic »

Arnt wrote: post #280
kadoban wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That teenage driver goes through a training and certification process, and we have ways of stopping them from driving if they fuck up too badly. They also have liability for their actions. Most of those are lacking or at least inconsistent, for AI driving.

Two human drivers passed me today in a street where passing me was unconditionally forbidden. In that street no car may pass any bicycle, ever, and there's giant signage. Are you suggesting that we have consistent, reliable ways to prevent those two from driving again?

That is certainly the idea behind traffic policing, license points, etc. All you need is police who enforce the laws that already exist.

Re: San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

#362

Post by xyzzy21 »

carabiner wrote: post #287
jwr wrote: post #72

I am really worried by the fact that I am the unwilling tester in the Great Driverless Car Experiment. Tradition has it that when you load-test a new bridge, you put the architect underneath. I feel like this, except I didn't design those driverless cars, somebody else did. Being an experienced software engineer, my trust in the software in these cars is pretty low. And yet they are testing them on me, because I can…

You didn't design the aircraft that you fly on, which are incredibly computerized. Also the drugs that your doctor prescribes. Etc. You put your faith in myriad bureaucracies and trust networks that you have no hope of understanding. Driverless cars are just one more added to the list.

Except safety has only ever been improved for either aircraft or drugs by people dying from exactly this kind of failure.

Apparently there is ZERO learning or forethought about risks that can be anticipated or suggested from other technologies!

Re: San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

#363

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

dntrkv wrote: post #249
CogitoCogito wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You’re basically an non-consenting tester for every piece of innovation that society every has/ever will come up with, in one way or another. It’s an unavoidable feature of living on the same planet as 8 billion other people. Perhaps the safety of this technology does need to improve, or perhaps not. But there’s no level of improvement that would ever be able to satisfy this outrage you’ve expressed at something ne…

Let’s say autonomous cars, once fully implemented, are even 10% safer than existing drivers. And testing in real-world conditions, speeds up the implementation by even just a year. We would need about 3k deaths at the hands of the autonomous drivers before the trade off was no longer worth it. This is only considering the US. And based on very conservative estimates of 10% improvement and a reduction of only a year s…

You're trying to do math in a scenario where you have no real numbers. Of course you can pull some stuff out of your butt (+10%, 1 year) to say it's going to save lives but unless you can justify those numbers it's meaningless.

Re: San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

#364

Post by nullc »

carapace wrote: post #272
jwr wrote: post #72

I am really worried by the fact that I am the unwilling tester in the Great Driverless Car Experiment. Tradition has it that when you load-test a new bridge, you put the architect underneath. I feel like this, except I didn't design those driverless cars, somebody else did. Being an experienced software engineer, my trust in the software in these cars is pretty low. And yet they are testing them on me, because I can…

This. These robots are massive and fast, they are killers. Yet as long as they look like cars we let them run loose on public streets. It's kinda nuts. (Arguably car traffic as it's set up now is kinds nuts too, but that's a different argument.) The obvious thing to do is start with something like a golf cart that is limited to, say, 5mph top speed, and work your way up.

Great observation.

When the device is a giant robot arm or a laser cutter, there are huge amounts of regulation-- you may have to get permission from your municipality to operate it even within the confines of your own facility.

Make it look like a car, however, ...

Cars and roads are kind of nuts, but they're established lunacy at least.

Re: San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

#365

Post by bin_bash »

beambot wrote: post #354
bin_bash wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mechanics need to be able to turn them off when they work on them or they’ll get blinded. Every car I’ve driven in the last 10 years seems to have an auto mode though. I’d be surprised if the Chevy’s these are based on don’t have an auto mode. It could be that a fuse blew here.

> Mechanics need to be able to turn them off when they work on them Couldn't you just turn off the car?

Mechanics need to turn the car on for various reasons like diagnosing problems and verifying things are seated.

Re: San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

#366

Post by xyzzy21 »

kadoban wrote: post #251
xadhominemx wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are all unwilling testers of every new teenage driver who hits the road.

That teenage driver goes through a training and certification process, and we have ways of stopping them from driving if they fuck up too badly. They also have liability for their actions. Most of those are lacking or at least inconsistent, for AI driving.

In fact, liability has been limited in this case by California laws...

Re: San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

#367

Post by dogman144 »

ethanbond wrote: post #299
carabiner wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't design the aircraft that you fly on, which are incredibly computerized. Also the drugs that your doctor prescribes. Etc. You put your faith in myriad bureaucracies and trust networks that you have no hope of understanding. Driverless cars are just one more added to the list.

Neither aircraft nor drug development norms look anything like the norms of software development. I actually find a substantial difference in my trust level between a traditional car company that's building self-driving capabilities (e.g. Mercedes) than a company that fashions itself as a software company that happens to build cars (e.g. Tesla) for exactly the reason of the norms and behaviors that each org would enc…

Generally agree but also knew people who worked on Boeing QA/SWE and the internal picture sounds dicy. I'm a bit disconcerted flying after learning about it.

Re: San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

#368

Post by bin_bash »

IgorPartola wrote: post #345
bin_bash wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mechanics need to be able to turn them off when they work on them or they’ll get blinded. Every car I’ve driven in the last 10 years seems to have an auto mode though. I’d be surprised if the Chevy’s these are based on don’t have an auto mode. It could be that a fuse blew here.

I have been working on my vehicles for a while. Removing the fuse or unplugging the lights is stupid easy.

I don't know how you've come to the conclusion that's a reasonable solution. Wiring harnesses on cars are a pain in the ass and definitely are not heavy duty enough for being removed many times. With a fuse you have to find the fuse box, remove the cover, find which fuse to remove, then pull it out with pliers. It's far more work than you're implying. Also, this is done every time I take my car in for service whether it's a tire change, oil change, or engine change.

More importantly you need to remember to put it all back together when you return the vehicle—not necessary with a switch.

It seems Canadian vehicles handle both use cases by allowing the vehicle to have the headlights off but only when parked.

Re: San Francisco cops pull over a Cruise driverless car for no lights on

#369

Post by Saris »

IgorPartola wrote: post #347
_greim_ wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> LED bulbs last a very long time LEDs are a high-end feature even in new cars, never mind all the existing cars on the road.

$20 bulbs are widely available on Amazon.

They're so poorly designed that they are completely useless. Also 100% illegal to use on road.
Post reply on HN