Hacker News Reader

Comment by logical42 | Hacker News Reader

To be fair, I feel like I, as a human, get confused about what I’m supposed to be doing driving in SF at a rate worse than once every thousand miles.

View on HN

To "get confused" is not the same thing as giving up completely and needing another individual to rescue you, in traffic. I think people are overly minimizing what disengagement signifies.

It might be interesting to know in what percent of disengagements the car was actually doing the right thing, and only the human driver thought it was wrong and intervened anyway.

Those are actually already removed from the disengagement count if the operator can show (with simulation) that the car would have done the right thing without intervention.

If it didn't work this way you would be incentivizing operators to train their drivers to take risks in order to hit disengagement metrics which would be bad.

I've seen a few where the car was right and a few where the driver was right, but my assumption is that the car just got lucky because, in my experience, the Cruise cars are very hesitant to make left turns.

>in my experience, the Cruise cars are very hesitant to make left turns

I'm sure unprotected (i.e. no arrow) left hand turns remain one of the more difficult routine scenarios to fine tune. What works in (I assume) Chandler Arizona and San Francisco are probably two very different things. A large busy city like San Francisco simply requires a degree of aggression--Pittsburgh lefts, cutting through fairly small gaps, etc.--that would be inappropriate in a calmer and less busy environment.

Well one failure was at 19th and Mission where left turns are illegal, another was at 13th and Folsom which I think is a protected turn, another was on 11th street where the drivers decided to make an illegal u-turn.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com