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

421–430 of 504 posts

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

#421

Post by LocalPCGuy »

CogitoCogito wrote: post #151
AmericanChopper wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> 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…

What about those pesky horseless carriages? Definitely should have had regulations to keep them off the roads. /sarcasm

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

#422

Post by dylan604 »

newaccount74 wrote: post #402
throwawayboise wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is my experience from one visit to the Arlington area years ago. One morning it was below freezing and there were some icy patches especially on bridges. Drivers were either creeping at 2mph or spinning out. There didn't seem to be anyone on the road who knew how to handle it.

How do you drive on icy roads though? Creeping at 2mph sounds like a reasonable choice, at least you won't make a lot of damage when you slowly slide into an obstacle.

>How do you drive on icy roads though?

It's a trick question. You don't should be the response.

For those that do, my first question is what is so damn important that you have to be driving in icy conditions in the first place? Schools are closed. Most businesses are closed. If my business isn't closed, I use a personal day. This isn't Chicago/Minneapolis where the snow lasts for 3 months. This is N. Texas. It's typically only cold enough for these conditions for a couple of days and typically only at night. Which actually makes it worse as it melts in the day, refreezes overnight, and people forget about the refreeze and drive as if things are normal.

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

#423

Post by colinmhayes »

pie42000 wrote: post #290
lubujackson wrote: post #247

The real surprise here is that SF police pulled over a car at all. Have been here for more than a decade and I can count the times I have seen a car pulled over in SF on one finger - meanwhile, I have seen numerous cars blow through red lights, speeding, U-turns in the middle of the street etc. in front of police with no response.

Yeah, this was my impression as well. In Chicago you have police actively pulling people over all the time. In SF i have literally not seen a single person pulled over in the year I've been here. For context, in Chicago i would see about 1 per day, and double that in Wisconsin.

> In Chicago you have police actively pulling people over all the time

Lived in Chicago for 25 years, this is pretty much the opposite of my experience. Seems like 90% of the time someone is pulled over here they're being arrested so I don't think it's because of a traffic violation.

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

#424

Post by paulryanrogers »

Fernicia wrote: post #242
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…

They are speaking more broadly. Every day you walk past buildings with novel construction features, planes fly overhead without your permission, the ingredients to the food you eat change without your knowledge or consent. It's a simple fact of life that you test things without explicitly consenting. The driverless cars are no different.

Food ingredients are posted on the package. If the contents differ the manufacturer is liable.

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

#425

Post by colinmhayes »

ThunderSizzle wrote: post #76
boondaburrah wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They already can. Police will simply crash your car if they feel like it by using their car.

That only happens when your running from them. Imagine if we give the DNC a kill switch to every car in America. Place it under as a tax penalty, and you'd have to wait until their audit finished in your favor for them to consider turning your car back on.

> That only happens when your running from them.

Except for all the times it's happened when people weren't running from them?

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

#426

Post by olyjohn »

jklinger410 wrote: post #416
Veserv wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Flying is still the safest way to travel. So I'm not sure what you're complaining about with the FAA.

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

#427

Post by mostertoaster »

jklinger410 wrote: post #416
Veserv wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yeah this is how most standards go. I use to work on medical devices, and the safety requirements for them were developed by my company and the other big players in the industry, and those became the FDA standards.

The FDA just wants there to be standards, and the companies have a vested interest in making sure those standards ensure safe medical devices.

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

#428

Post by dfxm12 »

gknoy wrote: post #418
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…

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 hal…

I'm _sure_ there are parts of the law that I have forgotten.

Or perhaps since laws have changed or new laws were made that you were unaware of (through no fault of your own - these things are hard to keep track of!). I agree people would hate it, but I think there's value in, like you say giving people a refresher about the law.

I also think there's value in reminding people that driving is not an inalienable right and also inviting a person to re-evaluate their situation every so often to think if they still really need a car.

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

#429

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

jklinger410 wrote: post #416
Veserv wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm lost by your comment.

It seems that you're trying to suggest either 1) that the standards as mentioned necessarily aren't True Standards - as a blanket statement - because they're set by the industry or 2) that these standards aren't True Standards - specific to this particular discussion - because there is no reason to think they're necessarily more rigorous than the standards for driverless car software. If you're trying to suggest something else, please understand that it is unclear.

I'm all for a dissenting opinion, but when it is not presented in an understandable way the discussion becomes hard to follow.

(I don't mean to suggest that the argument is wrong when I call out the True Scotsman vibes; just that it is the argument I see.)

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

#430

Post by jonny_eh »

colinmhayes wrote: post #406
jonny_eh wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it justifies their actions. Would we be quoting him if he didn't murder innocent people?

I don't think his murders invalidate his manifesto. Luditeism has been very popular since the industrial revolution, I think it's reasonably likely we would be talking about Industrial Society and its Future or something similar if he hadn't killed people.

> I don't think his murders invalidate his manifesto

That's not my point though, my point is that quoting his manifesto validates his violence. If his ideas are valid, there should be other sources to quote/promote.

Post reply on HN