Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cruise told by CA DMV to reduce robotaxi fleet 50% following crash

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 205 posts

Re: Cruise told by CA DMV to reduce robotaxi fleet 50% following crash

#61

Post by yazaddaruvala »

Zuiii wrote: post #51
yazaddaruvala wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [2015] In California alone, 431 people died in accidents involving young drivers[0] By your logic we should also stop allowing 15-20 year olds to learn how to drive in public. So far the robots have done less damage. [0] https://www.inlandempirelawyers.com/blog/young-driver-accide...

So? No need to increase that number by allowing half-developed machine to kill even more people. Having those kids on the road is a necessary evil. Having those dumb machines on the road is not. AI should be trained safely off the roads or not at all. If those companies don't know how then that's their problem, not ours.

> No need to increase that number by allowing half-developed machine to kill even more people

1. To my knowledge there has been only one death by a robot car. It was Uber’s and that program has been shut down for many reasons.

2. Given robot cars already have a higher bar for safety (ie fewer deaths, injuries, etc) than 15 year olds, wouldn’t the more prudent use of time/energy be to invest more into robot cars while changing policy so driving becomes (at minimum) 18+?

Re: Cruise told by CA DMV to reduce robotaxi fleet 50% following crash

#62

Post by Lammy »

botanical wrote: post #15

I've said it before when a self-driving Uber killed a woman, and I'll say it again: I don't understand why authorities allow self-driving cars to beta test out in public. I thought Waymo was the best with something like millions of hours on the road but when they started accepting passengers, it failed to proceed past a traffic cone: https://youtu.be/zdKCQKBvH-A?t=742 I wouldn't trust any of the others like Tesla and…

> I don't understand why authorities allow self-driving cars to beta test out in public.

Part of Total Information Awareness involves rolling as many cameras around in public as people will tolerate. San Francisco have made their priorities clear: https://reason.com/2022/09/26/san-francisco-police-can-now-h...

Re: Cruise told by CA DMV to reduce robotaxi fleet 50% following crash

#63

Post by ChatGTP »

ecshafer wrote: post #27

This is a good step. Next step is reduce all cars on the road by 50, 75 and eventually 99%.

As an avid cyclist I agree.

I’d love to neither on roads personally. Delivery trucks, tradespeople, emergency vehicles , that’s it.

Re: Cruise told by CA DMV to reduce robotaxi fleet 50% following crash

#64

Post by stemlord »

gruez wrote: post #40
botanical wrote: post #15

I've said it before when a self-driving Uber killed a woman, and I'll say it again: I don't understand why authorities allow self-driving cars to beta test out in public. I thought Waymo was the best with something like millions of hours on the road but when they started accepting passengers, it failed to proceed past a traffic cone: https://youtu.be/zdKCQKBvH-A?t=742 I wouldn't trust any of the others like Tesla and…

> I've said it before when a self-driving Uber killed a woman, and I'll say it again: But that car had a safety driver, who turned out to be negligent. What's the difference between a company testing a self-driving car with a safety diver killing someone because the safety driver was negligent, and a company doing deliveries with a human driver, and killing someone because the driver was negligent?

The argument is that self driving vehicles set a false expectation that the driver can relax-- bad design

Re: Cruise told by CA DMV to reduce robotaxi fleet 50% following crash

#65

Post by KennyBlanken »

gruez wrote: post #40
botanical wrote: post #15

I've said it before when a self-driving Uber killed a woman, and I'll say it again: I don't understand why authorities allow self-driving cars to beta test out in public. I thought Waymo was the best with something like millions of hours on the road but when they started accepting passengers, it failed to proceed past a traffic cone: https://youtu.be/zdKCQKBvH-A?t=742 I wouldn't trust any of the others like Tesla and…

> I've said it before when a self-driving Uber killed a woman, and I'll say it again: But that car had a safety driver, who turned out to be negligent. What's the difference between a company testing a self-driving car with a safety diver killing someone because the safety driver was negligent, and a company doing deliveries with a human driver, and killing someone because the driver was negligent?

The car hit her because Uber purposefully disabled the Volvo SUV's built-in autobraking systems, and because the self-driving system detected and classified her with plenty of time to react...and simply did nothing to avoid hitting her. A complete and total failure of the self-driving control logic.

It's also arguable that she was killed as a direct result of Nevada happily allowing Uber to conduct their self-driving testing after Uber was banned from testing in California for ignoring regulators and their cars routinely being caught violating traffic laws by dashcams, traffic cameras, and cyclist helmet cams.

Even if the safety driver had not been playing with their phone - it's well demonstrated that the whole concept of a 'safety driver' is bullshit; in studies, the drivers are terrible at taking over when they haven't been in control of the vehicle.

Safety drivers were lipstick on a pig, designed to make self-driving cars more palatable to the public.

Re: Cruise told by CA DMV to reduce robotaxi fleet 50% following crash

#66

Post by jfoster »

joshuahedlund wrote: post #2

> The latest Cruise incident occurred Thursday night when a Cruise robotaxi and an emergency vehicle crashed and left a passenger injured. Cruise said in a social media post that one of its self-driving Chevy Bolt EVs entered an intersection on a green traffic light at Polk and Turk streets when it was struck by an emergency vehicle that appeared to be en route to an emergency scene. Noticing and responding to emerge…

Cone blocking isn't hacking. It's simple criminal behavior.

Re: Cruise told by CA DMV to reduce robotaxi fleet 50% following crash

#67

Post by petre »

yazaddaruvala wrote: post #36
botanical wrote: post #15

I've said it before when a self-driving Uber killed a woman, and I'll say it again: I don't understand why authorities allow self-driving cars to beta test out in public. I thought Waymo was the best with something like millions of hours on the road but when they started accepting passengers, it failed to proceed past a traffic cone: https://youtu.be/zdKCQKBvH-A?t=742 I wouldn't trust any of the others like Tesla and…

> [2015] In California alone, 431 people died in accidents involving young drivers[0] By your logic we should also stop allowing 15-20 year olds to learn how to drive in public. So far the robots have done less damage. [0] https://www.inlandempirelawyers.com/blog/young-driver-accide...

In Europe they can't drive normal cars before 18. They will be able to to so after 17 if accompanied by an adult and will be subject to a probation period of 2 years after taking the test. Also speed "limitiers" will be required in all new vehicles after 2024. Most of these would probably be audible nags, like the one that beeps if one drives without the seatbelt.

https://transport.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/european-com...

Re: Cruise told by CA DMV to reduce robotaxi fleet 50% following crash

#68

Post by ChatGTP »

s0rce wrote: post #32
jhugo wrote: post #17

> “Over one hundred people lose their lives every day on American roadways, and countless others are badly injured, Cruise said in a statement sent via email. I’m so tired of this angle being accepted at face value. Current driverless cars are not even capable of safely navigating situations that below-average human drivers rarely struggle with, like avoiding driving into clearly marked wet concrete, or not crashing…

Here is a human that drove into wet concrete: https://www.wlwt.com/article/car-drives-through-wet-concrete... I'm sure its not that uncommon just not publicized, people are terrible drivers.

Yeah but humans are just LLMs / meat bags

Re: Cruise told by CA DMV to reduce robotaxi fleet 50% following crash

#69

Post by Kamq »

jfoster wrote: post #66
joshuahedlund wrote: post #2

> The latest Cruise incident occurred Thursday night when a Cruise robotaxi and an emergency vehicle crashed and left a passenger injured. Cruise said in a social media post that one of its self-driving Chevy Bolt EVs entered an intersection on a green traffic light at Polk and Turk streets when it was struck by an emergency vehicle that appeared to be en route to an emergency scene. Noticing and responding to emerge…

Cone blocking isn't hacking. It's simple criminal behavior.

Understanding a system well enough to manipulate it in ways that the owner doesn't want seems at least in the same category of phone phreaker behavior.

Which was also criminal behavior, but the point is that I don't think it automatically disqualifies it from the category.

Re: Cruise told by CA DMV to reduce robotaxi fleet 50% following crash

#70

Post by KennyBlanken »

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote: post #25
YeBanKo wrote: post #19

> The latest Cruise incident occurred Thursday night when a Cruise robotaxi and an emergency vehicle crashed and left a passenger injured. Cruise said in a social media post that one of its self-driving Chevy Bolt EVs entered an intersection on a green traffic light at Polk and Turk streets when it was struck by an emergency vehicle that appeared to be en route to an emergency scene. It sounds serious. But more impor…

It would be interesting to see, but emergency vehicles responding to a call (and with lights and sirens going) clearly have right of way. That said, every emergency driver I know and have seen slows to a near stop at intersections to make sure it's clear before proceeding. But perhaps that's not procedure in California, which would be madness.

No, the driver with the green light has right of way.

Emergency vehicles are not allowed to break traffic laws in any state; they're just afforded some privileges other vehicles aren't, and other operators are required to get out of the way.

If an ambulance hits a car that had a green light, the ambulance driver is cited.

https://www.google.com/search?q=ambulance+driver+cited

Post reply on HN