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

471–480 of 504 posts

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

#471

Post by feoren »

bmitc wrote: post #444
ShakataGaNai wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Did they pass a driver's license check? Yes. That would be the AV permit that the cars operate under. Also as they are programmed to obey all road laws, it's exceedingly unlikely they will cause any moving infractions. > Who's responsible? Who gets the ticket? Cruise. Their name is on the AV permit, it's their insurance. > spot essentially identical to where it was. Before it was in a lane of traffic next to a park…

Where do I apply for a permit to reassign culpability for my driving to a corporation? > At the end of the day the argument is that these cars are safer than the average driver. The last data I saw said otherwise, and that data was primarily collected in ideal conditions. That has been a few years, but these companies are not forthcoming with their data.

> Where do I apply for a permit to reassign culpability for my driving to a corporation?

Search a jobs aggregator for "Taxi Driver"?

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

#472

Post by seanmcdirmid »

bmitc wrote: post #444
ShakataGaNai wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Did they pass a driver's license check? Yes. That would be the AV permit that the cars operate under. Also as they are programmed to obey all road laws, it's exceedingly unlikely they will cause any moving infractions. > Who's responsible? Who gets the ticket? Cruise. Their name is on the AV permit, it's their insurance. > spot essentially identical to where it was. Before it was in a lane of traffic next to a park…

Where do I apply for a permit to reassign culpability for my driving to a corporation? > At the end of the day the argument is that these cars are safer than the average driver. The last data I saw said otherwise, and that data was primarily collected in ideal conditions. That has been a few years, but these companies are not forthcoming with their data.

> Where do I apply for a permit to reassign culpability for my driving to a corporation?

I think this is mandatory in most states and countries, at least for civil liability up to some limit. You can purchase more, of course (and I recommend to do so, given that the minimal liabilities in each state haven't really kept pace with needs).

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

#473

Post by Vecr »

recursive wrote: post #388
bin_bash wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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".

Probably some special forces/police operations in countries with a reasonable road system. Vans and SUVs are much more convenient than MRAPs or humvees.

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

#474

Post by glandium »

root_axis wrote: post #436
dfxm12 wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general, most of our cities (in the US) are very car-centric. Better than passing a law and hoping for the best while waiting to punish people, we can give people realistic alternatives to drunk driving to prevent it in the first place. Likely, these would have a second order effect of giving everyone realistic alternatives to driving too. If driving yourself isn't the norm, then drunk driving becomes more rare.

> we can give people realistic alternatives to drunk driving to prevent it in the first place Such as?

In Japan, there are taxi-like services that will drive your own car. 2 persons come in a taxi, one of them drives you in your car, and the other follows with the taxi (and picks back the first person once destination is reached).

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

#475

Post by markdown »

em500 wrote: post #57
markdown wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't imagine a circumstance where you would want a driverless car to be able to ignore stopping directions from law enforcement. Funny, I can't imagine a circumstance where I would want "law enforcement" to be able to override my directions and take control of my car.

Also, we're talking about driverless cars. The scenario is not the police pressing a remote stop button to override your directions, it's to override Cruise/Waymo/Uber's AI or remote control. This is a serious question, is there some real scenario that hasn't occurred to me, where it's desirable for either Cruise/Waymo/Uber's remote control or the onboard AI to ignore stopping directives from the police?

No. I agree with you. I was thinking further down the line, when everyone is in a driverless (optional?) car.

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

#476

Post by s1artibartfast »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #468
s1artibartfast wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Murder is typically defined as unjustifiable or wrong, so you would expect the set to be empty. Replace "murder" with 'killing" and most people will have the opposite reaction.

>>>> I don't think his murders invalidate his manifesto. - colinmhayes (the original post I responded to). And, for your point to be relevant to this discussion, you would have to claim that what the Unabomber did was "killing" rather than "murder". If you claim that, I'd like to see your definitions and where you think the line between killing and murder is. And if that isn't your claim, it looks like you're just ar…

I have no interest in defending the actions of the Unabomber.

I did feel that you were using the tautology of murder to ignore my actual point.

>You: His murders are the working-out of his ideas; his ideas are worth rejecting just on that basis.

>Me: That doesn't mean they are wrong in part or in whole.

If the unabomber said as part of the manifesto that the sky is blue, would you now reject that the sky is blue?

There is nothing about murder that invalidates the logic, truth, or accuracy of an argument, and especially not the individual components of an argument.

It is fine and fair if you don't personally want to learn or engage with an argument that has lead to violence. But that does not mean that it is internally inconsistent, or devoid of accurate observations about the world (e.g. new technologies can impose externalities on the unwilling).

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

#478

Post by bsder »

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

Now they are. This regulations are a result of several tragedies culminating in a big disaster:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191

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

#479

Post by pempem »

tremon wrote: post #333
pempem wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was it an "if" in yours when you were a teenager? There are lots of strong statistical differences that are visible in the teenage population and trickle their way into insurance tables. Basically we could do a better job engendering concern from teenagers, its not some kind of inherent mental lack of capability.

My point was that worrying about hypothetical outcomes is not usually at the forefront of a teenager's mind. Sure, they will regret wrecking their parents' car, but that doesn't mean that they will avoid actions that might wreck said car.

Yup, got that.

Female teenagers are way less likely to have wrecks (1) and if we assume its not driven by one's genitalia and rather by their conditioning - an assumption I hold, its something that can be taught.

"In 2019, the motor vehicle death rate for male drivers aged 16–19 was over two times higher than the death rate for female drivers of the same age."

1. https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/teen_drivers/teendr...

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

#480

Post by AnimalMuppet »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #476
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>>> I don't think his murders invalidate his manifesto. - colinmhayes (the original post I responded to). And, for your point to be relevant to this discussion, you would have to claim that what the Unabomber did was "killing" rather than "murder". If you claim that, I'd like to see your definitions and where you think the line between killing and murder is. And if that isn't your claim, it looks like you're just ar…

I have no interest in defending the actions of the Unabomber. I did feel that you were using the tautology of murder to ignore my actual point. >You: His murders are the working-out of his ideas; his ideas are worth rejecting just on that basis. >Me: That doesn't mean they are wrong in part or in whole. If the unabomber said as part of the manifesto that the sky is blue, would you now reject that the sky is blue? The…

Whether the sky is blue has no moral component. The Unabomber was saying 1) what he thought was wrong with society, and 2) how we should make a better society.

These judgments ("wrong" and "better") presuppose some definition of "good". But the guy was deliberately killing people. Am I supposed to believe his definition of what "good" is? No, I'm supposed to suspect that it's seriously skewed. (In fact, he's giving me evidence that it's seriously skewed.)

There's something about murder that invalidates the moral truth of an argument.

Could his argument still be internally consistent? Sure. Could it have accurate observations? Also sure. But should his manifesto be regarded as having any overall validity? No. (Recall that the original point I was replying to was whether his murders invalidated his manifesto.)

Post reply on HN