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

California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

881–890 of 1001 posts

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#881

Post by hnbad »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #813
RC_ITR wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with what you said, BUT From my perspective as a person who lives in San Francisco and also bikes a LOT: human driver also do not perform acceptably. I counted 14 cars without headlights on after sunset on a 2 mile bike ride yesterday. I counted 5 cars parked in either a bike lane or active traffic. 2 cars took blind rights (no stops) onto Polk from various alleyways. This was a good day, FWIW. Cruises have o…

> This comment is pretty controversial for whatever reason, but said differently - why would we allow autonomous cars to kill 30k Americans every year (the same allowance we give human drivers)? > That seems like a comically bad baseline. Now consider a version of autonomous cars that would kill 20k. The argument to switch to those cars, to save 10k lives a year, has to use 30k as a baseline. If we don't use 30k as a…

I think the better question is why we try to replace cars 1 to 1, even if it is in terms of mileage rather than number of vehicles. The problem isn't just drivers, the problem is cars. For most trips there are superior technological alternatives, there's just no political motivation to implement them because infrastructure is boring and it's easier to justify throwing more money at roads in the short term than investing in long term urban renewal projects to build and expand tram networks, underground transit, dedicated bus lanes and bicycle-first road networks. Especially now that the idea of "walkable neighborhoods" has cynically become a culture war issue rather than something that's objectively improving quality of life while reducing emissions and resource waste.

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#882

Post by Symbiote »

SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #819
Symbiote wrote: post #770

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am staring aghast with European eyes at a city of 4 million people where the commuter rail doesn't run outside peak hours. How do you get home if you go out for a couple of drinks with colleagues, or stay late for a call? You shouldn't be asking for a couple of trains between 8pm and midnight. They should be every half hour, or more! Midnight until 6am on Saturday and Sunday could be every hour or two. (I live in C…

In the wee hours catching a train and bus to get home is kind of annoying in Malmö. Mainly the buses basically stop running more than once an hour between 1-5am. Most US towns are basically uber/taxis only at that time. I live in Austin where you could theoretically be one of the lucky 1% of the population that both lives near a train station and wants to go somewhere near where that train station is. Even then you c…

Malmö is a fifth of the size of Copenhagen, or a tenth of Seattle. Once an hour at night isn't so bad for a city that size, isn't it? The trains to Copenhagen run all night, so I can get home...

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#883

Post by Culonavirus »

cp9 wrote: post #122

if people weren't VC brained they would realize that the way to prevent traffic deaths isn't to build fancy self driving cars, it's to invest in safer, more pedestrian friendly infrastructure and use the boring technology that already exists to get people where they want to go. the future is on buses and trains and bikes and pedestrian friendly 15 minute communities

> the future is on buses and trains

Bikes? If you mean e-bikes and motorcycles then maybe. Buses and trains? No it's not and it will never be. This is a position only a green extremist would take.

A fucking horse is better than any of those methods of transportation. There are two crucial elements a car and a horse have in common:

The first element: You own it (or rent it) and you tell it when and where to go. The when and where part is crucial.

The second element: It has the capability of carrying not only you, but also an another person and cargo.

The only transportation devices that can do both of these things are a) cars, b) horses, c) bikes (kind of... two people and cargo on a bike would be pretty tough to do, let alone with any level of comfort).

The fundamental, unfixable problem with trains and buses is that you don't tell them when and where.

The future is in EVs or global warming. Personally I've had it up to * here * with all the green hypocrites so I say bring on the warming, let's fuck this place up if you don't want electric cars.

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#884

Post by Symbiote »

runarberg wrote: post #807
Symbiote wrote: post #770

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am staring aghast with European eyes at a city of 4 million people where the commuter rail doesn't run outside peak hours. How do you get home if you go out for a couple of drinks with colleagues, or stay late for a call? You shouldn't be asking for a couple of trains between 8pm and midnight. They should be every half hour, or more! Midnight until 6am on Saturday and Sunday could be every hour or two. (I live in C…

I agree. I actually live a bit closer to Seattle then OP, only 40 min on bus + boat (add 20 outside of commuter hour for a second bus). The Sounder doesn’t actually run anywhere near me, (well I could take the 118 south to the Tahlequah ferry terminal, 10 min boat to Point Defiance, a Pearce transit bus to Tacoma, and ride the Sounder from there; which urbanists call the “long way”). so this doesn’t affect me persona…

Faroes? I visited during Covid, so there was no need to try staying out late.

But the population of the whole country is 1/100 of Seattle. Buses in some place during the day, and taxis at other times, is proportionate to what's available in Copenhagen.

I grew up in a small village in England. Choices for a night out were staying over at a friend's house (much preferable) or splitting the £15 taxi between several teenagers, which was a decent price as far as our parents were concerned. (Or walking for two hours and keeping the money, don't tell mum.)

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#885

Post by robertlagrant »

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #850
robertlagrant wrote: post #723

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cities have been designed around cars (or their precursor - horses/horse and carts) for much longer than decades. Individual transport is universally useful; transit is an optimisation for certain situations.

> Individual transport is universally useful Indeed and the most individual form of transport is walking and most cities in the world are built around walking. Only the US lays its cities out to require cars. It never really laid its cities for horses and carts (with the exception of Salt Lake City.) Before the car, cities were being built around the streetcar, and before that around walking. It's not like people liv…

> Only the US lays its cities out to require cars

I don't know where this comes from, other than the usual "US bad". Go to Johannesburg and live in a regular estate without a car.

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#887

Post by robertlagrant »

therealmarv wrote: post #97
xyst wrote: post #81

TxDMV needs to follow this. Fuck these companies. They are testing their garbage in dense urban areas. Too many times their vehicles just stop in the middle of the road. If it rains, vehicle stops. If the light is out, vehicle panics and stops. Somebody puts a cone on the hood, vehicle panics. If a single variable not accounted for in their algorithms shifts beyond expected range, it fucking panics. So much money dum…

This! A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation.

This is true - where I live only the relatively wealthy can afford close enough to schools to cycle to them. Anyone on a regular salary has to drive in.

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#888

Post by askl »

Culonavirus wrote: post #883
cp9 wrote: post #122

if people weren't VC brained they would realize that the way to prevent traffic deaths isn't to build fancy self driving cars, it's to invest in safer, more pedestrian friendly infrastructure and use the boring technology that already exists to get people where they want to go. the future is on buses and trains and bikes and pedestrian friendly 15 minute communities

> the future is on buses and trains Bikes? If you mean e-bikes and motorcycles then maybe. Buses and trains? No it's not and it will never be. This is a position only a green extremist would take. A fucking horse is better than any of those methods of transportation. There are two crucial elements a car and a horse have in common: The first element: You own it (or rent it) and you tell it when and where to go. The wh…

> The fundamental, unfixable problem with trains and buses is that you don't tell them when and where.

A proper public transit network already goes to where you wan to go. You don't have to tell them.

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#889

Post by lozenge »

dkarl wrote: post #504
PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that you can't punish a car. If a human being had done that they would have absolutely had the book thrown at them. There was a case where a woman was drunk driving and hit a man, he came up over the hood and into her windshield. He was alive but bleeding. She drove home and parked her car in the garage. He bled out through the night. NO ONE was sympathetic towards that woman. But if an automated vehic…

> If a human being had done that they would have absolutely had the book thrown at them. Really? If they had been in a car accident caused by another driver, and took a few seconds to pull over because they were unaware they were dragging a person initially hit by the other driver, they would have been charged? It's very hard to hold people responsible, and it's telling that you had to cite such a grisly and outrageo…

Cruise showed the DMV a video that cut out just before their car dragged (ran over) the pedestration. Effectively they were trying to do a hit and run as well by not showing footage of their car's behaviour that caused the injuries.

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#890

Post by fletchowns »

stfp wrote: post #124
fletchowns wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this just a troll comment? - Zero traffic fatalities would be nice - Reduced congestion/traffic, people can get to places faster - Never having to worry about parking again - No more need for cars parked on streets, more space & safer for cyclists and pedestrians - Reduced income requirements for those that need access to a car There are countless benefits. The transition period to get there will be a little tumul…

Except... They won't reduce congestion and traffic, because people won't have to drive they'll be OK with being on the road longer. You just hang out in your living room on wheels. Parking... Where are the cars going to park exactly? How far from the restaurants and homes etc? Won't the extra trips from/to parking lots create more traffic? Reduced income requirements, that's a new one to me. These cars will have more…

> They won't reduce congestion and traffic, because people won't have to drive they'll be OK with being on the road longer. You just hang out in your living room on wheels.

Traffic flows would become well coordinated and way more efficient, no more accordion effect and accidents to cause traffic jams.

> Parking... Where are the cars going to park exactly? How far from the restaurants and homes etc? Won't the extra trips from/to parking lots create more traffic?

It could be several miles from where the passengers are being dropped off. See above for why traffic won't be worse.

> Reduced income requirements, that's a new one to me. These cars will have more tech that's more expensive to build and maintain. How does that make them cheaper?

Of course new technology is expensive initially. Over time, it becomes cheaper and cheaper. Just like air travel, personal computers, broadband internet, etc.

> 50%+ of car trips are less than three miles... as a society what we need is a way to make those trips without cars.

More efficient use of the roadways from self driving cars would create opportunities for improvements in this area as well. Dedicated protected bike lanes, for example.

Post reply on HN