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

411–420 of 504 posts

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

#411

Post by brimble »

Retric wrote: post #308
dfxm12 wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems too reactive. I agree it is better than nothing, but if someone is going to have the wherewithal to put a law in place around this, I think the goal should should be more about preventing violations than punishment. Maybe you should have to re-take the test when your license expires instead of the license being a lifetime certification. That would be every four years in my state. Not sure if it is differen…

States already introduce mandatory vision tests and inquire about medical history with age even very Red or Blue states. https://www.dps.texas.gov/section/driver-license/drivers-age... https://www.dmv.com/md/maryland/senior-drivers?tg1=DVA&utm_c... Florida has vision requirements, and accepts reports of medical issues making driving unsafe: https://www.flhsmv.gov/driver-licenses-id-cards/medical-revi... In that conte…

The DMV worker that administered my mom's last test definitely fudged things so she could renew her license.

Luckily she basically never drives anyway [edit: because my dad who's still a decent driver drivers her around when she needs it because they both know she's not safe on the road, not because she can get by without a car], but I doubt that was an isolated incident. Because of how we've designed our cities, not being able to drive can represent a huge loss of freedom. In the moment, it seems some (and I'm guessing many) DMV workers take pity on the vulnerable elderly person in front of them rather than some hypothetical future victim of that driver.

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

#412

Post by AlotOfReading »

nkingsy wrote: post #396
AlotOfReading wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The intention is for the car to be a very boring, unremarkable driver. This sort of behavior has been noted before and most incidents were thought to have been fixed by a merge ~6 months ago, but there can always be missed scenarios/interactions. Was this more recent?

Yes this was march 29th, 12am ish 15 ish blocks south of Lombard

Weird. I'd look into it if I were still at cruise, but alas.

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

#413

Post by jklinger410 »

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 am really worried by the fact that I am the unwilling tester in the Great Driverless Car Experiment.

Welcome to America, where you are an unwitting tester of many private ventures that have been signed off on by the American government on your behalf.

Remember that complaining about these tests and demanding more control means that you are communist. Unless of course you don't mind waiting around to be harmed by such tests, and are either able to sue, or told that you had no reasonable expectation of safety.

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

#414

Post by notreallyserio »

njarboe wrote: post #337
kylecordes wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if cars were invented today. The bar would be much higher, probably halfway to how pilot licensing works. (Of course this had some substantial downsides.)

If cars were invented today, they would be too dangerous to be allowed to exist. Almost nothing has been invented since 1970 that can cause any harm. Safety first and all that.

They'd have to be built with cow-catcher like devices to push all the horseshit out of their way while traveling down the road. It'd be a different kind of awful.

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

#415

Post by colinmhayes »

logifail wrote: post #144
snovv_crash wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends. If it's an issue with just that vehicle then yes, you don't ground the whole fleet. If it's non-safety-critical, then it needs to be fixed asap but nothing gets grounded. If it's safety critical, then yes, all planes are grounded. But, I'd argue FAA levels of safety aren't suitable for cars. If a car has an engine failure or even a structural failure, they can usually just stop. Planes don't have that opt…

> I'd argue FAA levels of safety aren't suitable for cars. If a car has an engine failure or even a structural failure, they can usually just stop. Planes don't have that option. I had supposed we were thinking primarily about software faults and specifically those relating to the self-driving bit of a self-driving car. Best case: self-driving car gets lost and is found with flat battery miles from "home" (?) Worst-c…

> if the algo kills, why wouldn't you ground the algo (all instances of it)?

Well 40,000 people in the U.S. die in car crashes every year currently, why do we let people drive?

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

#416

Post by jklinger410 »

Veserv wrote: post #395
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.

The difference is that airplane software standards are by far the most rigorous in the world and so rigorous that most software developers are shocked at the level of rigor employed where as driverless cars have exactly zero software standards with respect to their safety or fitness for purpose. Comparing the processes in play is a outrageously fundamental category error; the systems have standards that are like 6 or…

> The difference is that airplane software standards are by far the most rigorous in the world and so rigorous that most software developers are shocked at the level of rigor employed...

You mean the standards set by the FAA, which regularly defers to the private industry to regulate itself, due to complexity that it can't afford to keep up with? Those standards?

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

#417

Post by mikestew »

MathCodeLove wrote: post #344
mikestew wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With that many examples, it should be simple to post just one example to make your point. But unsubstantiated contrarianism typically does not contribute to a conversation.

No one else provided examples nor asked for any. Perhaps you should ask for examples instead of assuming I'm acting out of malice. Here's a link to the full video for probably the most widely recognized case in the history of police brutality, the killing of George Floyd. Does the context this video provides make the officers actions okay? No, I don't think so. Does it make those actions appear much, much more reason…

Thanks for the link, it indeed provides context to your comment.

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

#418

Post by gknoy »

dfxm12 wrote: post #284
ISL wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Triggering testing/education after traffic violations might be a middle-ground.

This seems too reactive. I agree it is better than nothing, but if someone is going to have the wherewithal to put a law in place around this, I think the goal should should be more about preventing violations than punishment. Maybe you should have to re-take the test when your license expires instead of the license being a lifetime certification. That would be every four years in my state. Not sure if it is differen…

I remember doing traffic school about ~15 years ago, and realizing that there were several points of the law which I had not adequately learned when I first got my license. Over the years of driving, I've gotten better at some parts of driving (being safe, etc), but I'm _sure_ there are parts of the law that I have forgotten. (e.g., is it legal in my state to turn through a crosswalk if the pedestrian is past the halfway point?)

I feel like if driver licensing required re-certification, everyone would hate that, but it would have the added value of making sure to reinforce that people knew what the law _was_. Maybe it'd be less painful if our insurance already subsidized the cost. I feel bad even advocating for such a thing.

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

#419

Post by brigade »

adhesive_wombat wrote: post #33
brigade wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same way humans do? It needs to recognize flashing lights and emergency vehicles to obey the law to get out of their way, and from there add code to fully pull over and remain stopped as long as there’s a cop car with flashing lights staying behind you.

I assume it's more complex that that, but I can't see how a driverless car can reliable distinguish between being pulled over and an emergency vehicle is trying to get past on a narrow road.

Part of being pulled over is not blocking traffic while stopped, so if there’s literally no shoulder/dirt to pull over onto then obviously you continue until there is.

Just like a human driver is legally required to.

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

#420

Post by colinmhayes »

Archelaos wrote: post #111
sseagull wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, most of the time. If the cop feels like it, they can make you have a very bad time. https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/7645474002 “An Arkansas woman says she had no safe place to pull over in July 2020 when a state trooper tried to stop her for speeding, so she turned on her hazard lights and slowed down. Moments later, the officer rammed her vehicle, causing it to flip over and injuring the woman”

In my country this would be an illegal disproportionate action. Did the state trooper get away with this? If not, wouldn't it be time to change the law?

Haha of course he got away with it
Post reply on HN