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

371–380 of 445 posts

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#371

Post by [deleted] »

nmca wrote: post #344
jschwartzi wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are absolutely negligent for doing so. I wouldn't have made that decision, because in a safety-critical system it's ALWAYS preferable to have a backup system, especially when the system you're working with is unproven software that you don't fully understand. It doesn't matter that the old system would have interfered with the new system, and in fact if the two systems did interfere it would behoove you to under…

So I agree that the system was insufficiently tested to be operating on public roads and endangering lives, and that lack of testing was negligent; I also agree with your comment about their engineering culture. But those two points seem distinct from the idea of disabling a system in order to have a better understanding of what's going on. Suppose they had built a car that was safe, conditioned on the presence a bla…

[deleted]

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#372

Post by resonantjacket5 »

zaphirplane wrote: post #336
melkiaur wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, let's use normal right-sided driving method. Imagine you're vulnerable (on a bike, or worse: on an electric scooter), and you want to turn left. You were going northbound and want to go westbound. In "normal" fashion, you'd have to stay on the left of your lane, and wait for the traffic coming in front of you to die down before you can cross. That puts you straight in the middle of the intersection for some time,…

Fairly sure the hook turn isn’t about safety, it’s about traffic flow. If it’s about safety it would be see more usage across the world

Its used in denmark Australia etc anywhere with sufficient bike lanes or of the intersection is reallt large

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#373

Post by lemoncucumber »

zaphirplane wrote: post #336
melkiaur wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, let's use normal right-sided driving method. Imagine you're vulnerable (on a bike, or worse: on an electric scooter), and you want to turn left. You were going northbound and want to go westbound. In "normal" fashion, you'd have to stay on the left of your lane, and wait for the traffic coming in front of you to die down before you can cross. That puts you straight in the middle of the intersection for some time,…

Fairly sure the hook turn isn’t about safety, it’s about traffic flow. If it’s about safety it would be see more usage across the world

It's definitely safer, and it does see quite a bit of usage in areas of the world with high quality cycling infrastructure. The fact that it doesn't see more usage is just a testament to the fact that most urban planners around the world don't care much about keeping cyclists safe.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#374

Post by resonantjacket5 »

zdragnar wrote: post #127
marnett wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if this happens i will surely protest self-driving cars. cities should be built for pedestrians, not cars.

Don't protest self-driving cars, protest the laws you feel shouldn't apply to you. After all, there are plenty of other reasons jaywalking laws might become more strictly enforced.

Lol or perhaps jaywalking laws should be loosened if they're not being applied anyways in most cities.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#375

Post by mannykannot »

lhorie wrote: post #200
linker3000 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously!? The responsible position would be to retain the existing system in a passive standby mode, capable of overriding the active 'under test' one in the event certain safety/detection thresholds were exceeded.

IIRC someone had said that there are physical limitations to what one can actually do (namely, having to physically unplug the connector for one safety system in order to be able to add your own at all)

As the vehicle can obviously be operated with the emergency braking system in place, it seems highly implausible that an autonomous system could not be designed to work with it in effect. If Uber did not do so merely because it would have been inconvenient or taken more time or effort, then that would be even more damning than a bad, but well-intentioned, engineering decision.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#376

Post by Symmetry »

isostatic wrote: post #321
flyingfences wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A car that defaults to braking without any deduction beyond detection will never make it through an intersection, let alone a whole trip, in some parts of the world.

New York looks like a well regulated army training course compared with somewhere like Cairo. Never is a long time, but I don't see self driving cars coping well when traffic is coming the wrong way down the street, let alone when cars are driving along the sidewalk

Yes, Cairo will probably have self-driving cars over a decade after New York has them. But that doesn't mean self-driving cards aren't a commercially viable product before they work in Cairo. Very few technological innovations work better than the thing they replace in all circumstances initially. Back In The Day there were a lot of places a horse could go that a Model T couldn't but that didn't prevent cars from replacing horses.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#377

Post by Shivetya »

uptown wrote: post #115
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…

NPR had a story about how self-driving cars in Pittsburgh wouldn't be adhering to the "Pittsburgh-left": "Even harder for autonomous cars to master are local quirks; things like "the Pittsburgh left." That's a custom unique to the city that allows the first driver trying to make a left turn to do so before oncoming cars pass through an intersection. It's one thing that Emily Duff Bartel says Uber's fleet of self-driv…

So I am curious if companies have popped up who will try to provide localization for traffic laws similar to how we have companies that provide data on zip codes to regulated materials. an example would be to know when a right turn on red is permitted even without signage. which while not a quirk there are many small towns with special rules that tend to catch people off guard.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#378

Post by atomical »

swebs wrote: post #193
atomical wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the breaks don't work because of an engineering defect who is responsible? In this case it's the LIDAR that failed.

The article said the LIDAR was fine. It was the decision making software that failed.

The decision making for the LIDAR?

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#379

Post by yosito »

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.

If single lane road deadlock is a problem, the city's urban planners should (and probably will) install a left turn signal to solve it. A better solution than reckless driving is to report the deadlock to the city.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#380

Post by mcbits »

userbinator wrote: post #263
jarfil wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 goin…

Outside of designated crosswalks, I don't think drivers are usually considered liable when a pedestrian walks in front of them if stopping would violate the laws of physics. Stop if possible, yes. I'd do the same for a squirrel, so that doesn't seem like too much to expect. At least the human might get cited for jaywalking.
Post reply on HN