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

71–80 of 205 posts

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

#71

Post by jfoster »

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.

They may have right of way, but does that mean they can blast through an intersection at any speed or is there a reasonable speed they should be proceeding at?

On what's currently made public, this really feels like it could go either way with regard to which party was more at fault.

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

#72

Post by jeffbee »

ChatGTP wrote: post #63
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.

Mostly delivery bikes and trades on bikes, one hopes.

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

#73

Post by Dylan16807 »

yazaddaruvala wrote: post #48
7e wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do terrible drivers drive as much as Cruise does? Terrible drivers at least eventually get better through practice. Having 100 poorer than average driving autonomous cars in the streets driving around 24x7 is a net worsening. Autonomous cars improve more slowly than humans do.

The myth about good vs bad drivers has long been out to bed. All drivers are better than average drivers. The problem for all humans is alcohol, sleep deprivation, stress, phones, coffee, makeup, shaving, food, etc. Everyone, including you, has read at least one text while driving. Sleep deprived actors by definition cannot correctly judge their ability to be sleep deprived. None of us are immune to these realities.…

> Sleep deprived actors by definition cannot correctly judge their ability to be sleep deprived.

What is that supposed to mean?

Especially 'by definition'??

Your body gives you plenty of feedback for sleep deprivation.

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

#74

Post by jeffbee »

thereisnospork wrote: post #50

Absurd: Are we going to call for a 50% reduction in human operators next time there is a crash caused by something with a pulse? We can't have progress if we don't get over this inane sentimentality(?) over how accidents, deaths, and dismemberments are just 'how things are' so long as they are caused by people and 'Safety of the traveling public is the California DMV’s top priority[0]' when a robot does it. [0]Editor…

After a human killed a four-year-old child in central San Francisco earlier this week (did not hit the front page of HN despite being as relevant to AVs as this story) unfortunately nobody called for an immediate reconsideration of the whole car thing.

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

#75

Post by jeffbee »

CaliforniaKarl wrote: post #3

I am a little confused at how the reduction request is coming from the CA DMV… > The California Department of Motor Vehicles, the agency that regulates the testing and deployment of autonomous vehicles in the state, requested the reduction in operations. … while it was the CPUC that allowed an expansion of their fleet: > The CPUC, the agency that regulates ride-hailing operations including those involving robotaxis,…

CPUC regulates taxis. CPUC gave them the ability to charge for rides.

DMV regulates other aspects, including the overall self-driving program.

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

#76

Post by [deleted] »

petre wrote: post #67
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...

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/europ…

[deleted]

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

#77

Post by _acco »

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…

You’re missing the point. It’s an appeal that we need to change the status quo.

They may not be there yet. But AVs are the only serious contender to solve the traffic fatality problem.

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

#78

Post by idontpost »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #70
kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[dead]

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

#79

Post by jancsika »

thereisnospork wrote: post #50

Absurd: Are we going to call for a 50% reduction in human operators next time there is a crash caused by something with a pulse? We can't have progress if we don't get over this inane sentimentality(?) over how accidents, deaths, and dismemberments are just 'how things are' so long as they are caused by people and 'Safety of the traveling public is the California DMV’s top priority[0]' when a robot does it. [0]Editor…

> We can't have progress if we don't get over this inane sentimentality(?) over how accidents, deaths, and dismemberments are just 'how things are' so long as they are caused by people and 'Safety of the traveling public is the California DMV’s top priority[0]' when a robot does it.

That sure does sound like the way to have progress.

Blockchain and self-driving seem to be the only digital domains where adherents argue for lowering our standards for the technology being offered-- typically in pursuit of some unspecified improvement at an unspecified future date.

It's actually difficult to come up with an analogy in any other domain. Perhaps if VR hardware had some inane limitation that required users to always walk the entire physically analogous distance to move around in the virtual world. And when a user complains about not being able to teleport to different areas, VR adherents push back that the VR world is no worse than the physical world in this sense.

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

#80

Post by ChatGTP »

jeffbee wrote: post #72
ChatGTP wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an avid cyclist I agree. I’d love to neither on roads personally. Delivery trucks, tradespeople, emergency vehicles , that’s it.

Mostly delivery bikes and trades on bikes, one hopes.

Amsterdam is pretty awesome like this, there are even removalist bikes
Post reply on HN