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

Cyclist hit by driverless Waymo car in San Francisco, police say

sfgate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

721–730 of 750 posts

Re: Cyclist hit by driverless Waymo car in San Francisco, police say

#721

Post by TeMPOraL »

mh- wrote: post #636
TeMPOraL wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All self driving > Reckless drivers only self-driving > current situation > small random population only self-driving > GGPs-mom-likes only self-driving. Unfortunately, identifying people like GGP's mother and excluding them from requirement for self-driving is prohibitively expensive (and icky in all kinds of ways), and so would be predicting reckless driving behavior (approximately every driver is reckless at some…

> identifying people like GGP's mother and excluding them from requirement for self-driving is prohibitively expensive (and icky in all kinds of ways) Not sure I follow the thinking here. We already have ability tests in driver's license exams.

Yes, and every mad or reckless driver passed them with flying colors, kind of by definition, otherwise we'd be talking about drivers illegally operating road vehicles. Approximately all traffic accidents involving drivers is involving drivers with valid license, who passed ability tests.

Re: Cyclist hit by driverless Waymo car in San Francisco, police say

#722

Post by TeMPOraL »

idiotsecant wrote: post #694
Draiken wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it partially explains why cars hurt/kill so many people every single day? I agree with GP: automating everything and removing humans from the equation would be a much better solution. Unfortunately it's not practical because it's not profitable.

Yes, its definitely a conspiracy and not because we can barely manage the non-intelligent infrastructure we have now.

We can barely manage the non-intelligent infrastructure because it's not profitable.

Getting humans to agree on something at scale larger than half a dozen is like herding cats. Money is catnip - it works well at aligning masses towards common goal.

Re: Cyclist hit by driverless Waymo car in San Francisco, police say

#723

Post by teekert »

LtWorf wrote: post #639
teekert wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are an angry person. Most people are kind, something is not adding up here.

I am not angry until some person on the bicycle tells me to go to hellvete (hell, but it's more insulting in swedish than english) because I dared to walk on the cleared up bicycle path when there was no alternative. After, I do tend get angry, yes. You are probably just set in your own ways and refuse to internalize that there's more to the experience of the human race than your little bubble.

He man we all know Klingons have anger management issues.

Re: Cyclist hit by driverless Waymo car in San Francisco, police say

#724

Post by fmobus »

edgyquant wrote: post #702
fmobus wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can, when cities are not built with dumb land use patterns. I am moving to an apartment 50km away from my workplace. Commuting by car or by train will take around the same time (~50 min door-to-door), but the car will be subject to random traffic, hunting for parking spot, stress, etc. Oh, and the train is several times cheaper.

This comment is out of touch just based on the first sentence. The US is a continent spanning nation and half the country does not live in a city.

> The US is a continent spanning nation

How is that relevant? No one commutes from NY to LA everyday, much as no one commutes from Berlin to Munich everyday.

> and half the country does not live in a city

Yes, and that's what I mean by "dumb land-use patterns". That people living in suburbs are not technically within a city's boundaries is a distinction without a difference. Land is wasted to highways and parking lots no one can cross without a two-ton machine, useless lawns no one really has time to enjoy or maintain, dumb McMansions that cost and arm and a leg and so on.

And all of that is subsidised in what is effectively a [pyramid scheme]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI>.

Re: Cyclist hit by driverless Waymo car in San Francisco, police say

#725

Post by vertis »

edgyquant wrote: post #703
vertis wrote: post #619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fine, you drive between London and Paris, but I'm going to catch the Eurostar (tube and metro). You drive between New York and SF, but I'm going to fly. I'm not recommending buses, buses suck. European public transport is amazing and the US could learn something.

Im talking more going from Chicago to small town central Illinois. You’re biased and assuming everyone who travels lives in, leaves from and arrives at a city. You assume everything else is fly over country instead of most of the countries land and half its population.

And you're biased in thinking everything has bad public transport like the US. I could use an absolute bucket load of examples from UK, Europe and Australia where to drive long distance you will always come off second to public transport of one form or another.

Europe and the UK has an absolutely extensive train network, not just big cities. I could have as easily said Ancona to Bologna, or Strasbourg to Stuttgart. You're just unlikely to know anything about those places. Or even smaller stations/towns -- Hinkley or Inverness.

Australia's regional towns are primarily linked by regional airlines, the drives are insanely long to get to the nearest city. People do, of course, but flying is always going to be quicker.

Re: Cyclist hit by driverless Waymo car in San Francisco, police say

#726

Post by shadowgovt »

mh- wrote: post #636
TeMPOraL wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All self driving > Reckless drivers only self-driving > current situation > small random population only self-driving > GGPs-mom-likes only self-driving. Unfortunately, identifying people like GGP's mother and excluding them from requirement for self-driving is prohibitively expensive (and icky in all kinds of ways), and so would be predicting reckless driving behavior (approximately every driver is reckless at some…

> identifying people like GGP's mother and excluding them from requirement for self-driving is prohibitively expensive (and icky in all kinds of ways) Not sure I follow the thinking here. We already have ability tests in driver's license exams.

Those tests are dangerously insufficient to keep unsafe drivers off the road.

Re: Cyclist hit by driverless Waymo car in San Francisco, police say

#727

Post by shadowgovt »

pooper wrote: post #515
scott_w wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Others have made better points but I want to add another thing to point out you can also be making the same "is-ought" mistake yourself: Impaired drivers (drink, drugs, sleep), bad drivers, dangerous drivers, etc. who ought to use the self-driving function are exactly the kinds of people who won't and continue to drive badly. What this means is the safer drivers leave it off (because they outperform the system), whil…

When it is good enough, we should remove the ability for humans to drive cars manually in all new cars after that point.

Or even migrate the testing schema to more frequent re-checks and a harder pass condition.

If people don't have to drive to thrive in society, we can make driving far more of a privilege. Contrast what a private pilot has to do to get certified.

Re: Cyclist hit by driverless Waymo car in San Francisco, police say

#728

Post by patrick451 »

ganieldackle wrote: post #130
patrick451 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A computer doesn't need a multi million dollar marketing campaign convincing it not to text while driving or drive drunk. A human doesn't get random bugs every week from OTA updates. The human mind is not a viable target for hackers. The risks of human drivers are individual. The risks of computer drivers are systemic and massive. One bad bug or hack could kill millions if self driving cars become ubiquitous.

>A human doesn't get random bugs every week from OTA updates. What bugs are you referencing exactly? Humans have something called emotions that are far more variable than bugs in a safety critical system and you're exposed to thousands of different flavors every time you get on the road. >The human mind is not a viable target for hackers. But it is, and not even sophisticated ones at that. One lane change and a middl…

You still don't get. All human problems are individual. Emotions in one person have zero impact on emotions in a driver two state away. Software problems are systemic. They change the entire system at once.

Your "just hypothesis" dismissal would carry a lot more weight if silicon valley hadn't been cranking out bug filled garbage for the last 20 years in their move fast and break things frenzy. Kyle Vogt was (in)famous for vaunting that culture at cruise so there's no argument AVs have somehow escaped the silicon valley rot. The tech industry need to stay far, far away from anything safety related

Re: Cyclist hit by driverless Waymo car in San Francisco, police say

#729

Post by sporkland »

sporkland wrote: post #715
sschueller wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self driving cars are a misguided attempt to make driving safer when the underlying issue isn't necessarily the driver.

Your comment is a misguided attempt to point out that even if we have safe cars we still have cars with all of their challenges around noise and other inherent dangers and problems. Hope you do better next time.

Let me help you:

"While I'm excited about the potential improvements to traffic safety, congestion and waste of life that self driving cars can bring. I still yearn for improvements to public transit and micromobility that can eliminate cars from the road altogether and yield major improvements in density, efficiency, safety and pollution (noise, tires)"

Post reply on HN