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

381–390 of 504 posts

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

#381

Post by bin_bash »

bee_rider wrote: post #143
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 bet it is something boring, like a fuse blew, or maybe they still have the auto/manual lights selector even though the car is autonomous, and somebody misconfigured it. You'd think 'are the lights on' would be a self-check it would perform, though. GM has to know that headlights go out occasionally, right?

> You'd think 'are the lights on' would be a self-check it would perform, though.

If it wasn't before I would bet it will be soon.

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

#382

Post by akhmatova »

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.

Driverless cars are just one more added to the list

It's a qualitatively different change than any of the above (driven by a messianic view that AI is here and now and about to change everything), plus an instance of the

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

apologue.

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

#383

Post by Johnny555 »

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.

I don't know where you live, but my "training and certification process" was mom driving with me for a few weeks, then I went to the driver testing office, drove around a closed course, proved I could stay on my side of the road, stop at a stop sign, and parallel park. Then I got my license without ever being tested at over 25mph. Even with the state of today's technology, I'd trust a driverless car more than I'd trust a new teen driver.

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

#384

Post by virgilp »

dsr_ wrote: post #87
virgilp wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I saw that video - don't get me wrong, the officer was definitely an asshole; but I can see why he was annoyed, there was in fact plenty of space &time for her to pull over.

Remind us how what the police officer did wasn't vehicular assault and potentially homicide. Remind us how physical injury is a reasonable response to a traffic violation.

I don't want to defend him, what he did was *wrong*. He should absolutely face consequences for gross over-reaction. I never said his response was reasonable given the circumstances.

But the way the story was presented was extremely biased. I believe the US cops are trained to actually use the "pit" maneuver to stop offenders who otherwise refuse to stop. In this case, he should've known better - but one can totally see how an asshole cop would interpret the situation as "lady is refusing to stop, I need to compel her to do so".

I guess what I'm saying is that it wasn't a totally random act of unprovoked cop violence.

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

#385

Post by dylan604 »

Vladimof wrote: post #355
dylan604 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

clearly, it's not an engrained G service that lots and lots of people depend on, as that's the typical decision Googs waits for before pulling the plug

There are LOTS of AMP links floating around... most people don't even know that they depend on it...

sorry, i guess i should have ended my original post with /s

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

#386

Post by conductr »

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…

My wife's 96 year old grandfather still has a driver's license because he passes some ridiculous vision test with 1 of his eyes. He can't read a newspaper or see a television well enough to enjoy sports (previously his favorite thing). He says he's memorized the vision test at his doctor's office and when asked the doctor refuses to file a report (or whatever procedural thing is required to remove his driving abilities). He totaled his car(s) every ~6 months for the past ~5 years. Luckily for other drivers, always doing something like hitting a concrete light pole base in a large parking lot. Although him and wife have been hospitalized each time as 1) age 2) sometimes happens at >35MPH.

All to say, the roads being safe as a core assumption is completely false. I'd gladly share the road with beta AI versus other drivers like this. Being an occupant in beta AI is completely optional.

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

#387

Post by standardUser »

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.

"That teenage driver goes through a training and certification process"

Did anyone else spit out their morning coffee at this hilarious one-liner?

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

#388

Post by recursive »

bin_bash wrote: post #306
jillesvangurp wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been required to do so in some northern European countries. The practical reason there is that dawn and dusk can take many hours during much of the year at higher latitudes thus creating a weird situation where it's not really clear when exactly you should have the lights on or off in exactly the kind of situation where a lot of accidents can happen if you don't have them on. The simple rule of "always have your…

> I can't think of any good reason to voluntarily reduce my visibility while cycling through potentially lethal traffic. Watch more horror movies and you'll think of some.

Rephrase to "any good non-fiction reason".

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

#389

Post by jdavis703 »

conductr wrote: post #386
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…

My wife's 96 year old grandfather still has a driver's license because he passes some ridiculous vision test with 1 of his eyes. He can't read a newspaper or see a television well enough to enjoy sports (previously his favorite thing). He says he's memorized the vision test at his doctor's office and when asked the doctor refuses to file a report (or whatever procedural thing is required to remove his driving abiliti…

If you’re in California, you can file a report with the DMV since you presumably know both his license plate and his name.

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

#390

Post by tryitnow »

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…

I agree with your basic idea, but I don't think there's really any way around this - at some point these systems will have to be tested in a real world environment.

I guess the question is: how much higher should the bar be set? And if we set it substantially higher then how much longer will it take to improve the performance and safety of these systems?

Post reply on HN