Hacker News Reader

Comment by olliej | Hacker News Reader

"Cruise blamed cellphone carriers for the problem."

"As I understand it, outside lands impacted LTE cell connectivity and ability for RA advisors to route cars."

I'm sorry, in what world is stopping in the road an acceptable response to losing cell service? How the f are we expected to trust a company that thinks this is not their fault, and that designing their "self driving" cars around 100% cell service or random(), is "safe"?

If you are putting "self driving" software on the road, and it behaves badly, then just like a human driver would be, you are responsible. Until Cruise, Waymo, Tesla, etc are directly, and non-transferrably liable for all "mistakes" made by their "self driving" systems we're just going to get more of this BS.

View on HN

California DMV code 227.02 defines an autonomous vehicle as one that has a remote operator, and 227.38(b)(1) demands a continuously maintained and monitored two-way link from the operating business to the vehicle, even when not being operated.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/file/adopted-regulatory-text-p...

I didn't see any language demanding that the vehicle become inoperable in a cellular dead zone, but if their paramount concern is to shield themselves from liability, then having the car disengage is one way to ensure that.

For residents of San Francisco that were personally affected by this, consider writing a polite note to the DMV asking them to ensure that this incident is included in this winter's upcoming disengagement reports (227.50) from Cruise, and share your point of views — both on how you expected autonomous vehicles to behave when cellular communication is disrupted, and on whether you think that the existing guidelines are sufficiently clear about that scenario. <autonomousvehicles@dmv.ca.gov>

> I didn't see any language demanding that the vehicle become inoperable in a cellular dead zone, but if their paramount concern is to shield themselves from liability, then having the car disengage is one way to ensure that.

If I block a bunch of roads with cars I am violating CVC, at least once per car, and would get fined every time. I'd also possibly get penalties on my license.

For example, say I'm driving down the road and start feeling tired. I realize that it's unsafe for me to continue driving. Can I just stop where I am and have a nap and claim I have shielded myself from liability?

CVC violations and license penalties are not liabilities. Both you and self-driving cars should earn penalties for that behavior, and honestly I'd like to see Cruise ticketed for the CVC violations documented above.

However, by coming to a stop in the middle of the road and having a nap, you are maximally protected from any damages or harm you might otherwise incur. If someone runs into you, they will be partially at fault; and, as you are stopped, you cannot run into someone else. From a purely selfish standpoint, that would be a completely appropriate choice to make.

Fortunately, the points system used in California for individual drivers issues penalties for non-harmful, non-destructive violations so individual drivers will still be penalized for taking purely selfish actions (like parking in the middle of the street, though YMMV region-to-region). There are too many drivers and not enough workers at the DMV to converse with every individual about their year of 'disengagements' while on public roadways, for the DMV to define protection of the commons by "once a year, we ask you for a self-audit of your fuckups", as they do with autonomous driving companies today.

I don't have an opinion on whether that is the best possible outcome or not right now — but it's as close as I can describe how things are today, and why you should not expect to minimize liability like an autonomous vehicle does without penalty. I hope this is of some use to your question.

Yeah, I’ve wondered if Cruise and Waymo get tickets for this stuff. But if they do, paying them is probably not a big expense for these large companies.

What, if any, fine or other punishment is Cruise expected to receive?

I don't know, as it wasn't interesting to me; and, I don't recommend contacting the DMV for retaliatory purposes. Others are welcome to speak to this if they know more, though.

Personally, I want to see the DMV define expectations for autonomous cars with respect to interrupted cellular service, so that Cruise and others cannot simply just park in the middle of the street as the selfish-lowest-liability choice. It's possible the DMV will define an expectation of the car coming to a stop, or continuing to operate for up to five minutes, or whatever.

I also feel like Cruise's disengagement report has a chance of containing materially-interesting data around why they disengaged — for example, can their cars operate without a cellular connection at all, or are they dependent on The Cloud?

> Personally, I want to see the DMV define expectations for autonomous cars with respect to interrupted cellular service

The rules for self driving cars should be at least the same as for people. If things differ at all, it should be making them harsher - people get a heavily restricted degree of latitude as we recognize human brains suffer fatigue, etc but computers don't suffer those issues.

Similarly liability (civil and criminal) for dangerous, unsafe, or simply incorrect driving shall be with the driver. With a self driving vehicle, that is the manufacturer. The whole reason for the "driver must pay attention while self driving" is to liability shift from the manufacturer of an unsafe product to the purchaser.

I agree that "stopping in the middle of the street" should be discouraged. Certainly one solution is to remove the liability for continuing to drive. Another is to increase the liability (if insufficient) for stopping in the middle of the street.

I don’t know if Cruise cars stop if cell connection is lost or not. However the remote operator can help unstuck the car. So it could be the car got stuck for some other reasons and then ROs couldn’t help.

A little surprised that they don't have Iridium as backup

Satellite latency would be too large to be very useful in a remote backup situation.

True, but that's better than nothing, right?

The law is written that of remote operation isn’t possible, the cars aren’t allowed to move. So in this case, it wouldn’t have mattered.

You’re incorrectly assuming that lack of cell service causes the cars to stop. The quote you copied says it impacted their ability to remotely get the cars unstuck. What alternative would you propose (besides adding back in safety drivers)? Should the car keep going when it is not confident to do so?

If the car is not able to safely operate without constant human involvement then it definitionally requires a person on board.

If losing cellular service causes it to stop, then in emergencies you're pretty much guaranteeing a large number of roadblocks for emergency services, on top of their existing hazards to emergency services when operating in ideal environments.

> Should the car keep going when it is not confident to do so?

See above, re: if your car can't even pull over and park safely on its own it has no business being on the street.

> If the car is not able to safely operate without constant human involvement then it definitionally requires a person on board.

"Yeah but hiring people for our beta testing costs -money-, how do you expect us to growth hack with that?"

The idea is that remote operators help get the car unstuck, but the car should always be able to avoid collisions on its own. I think these cars are supposed to pull over as well instead of blocking traffic.

Key word here being “supposed to”, of course problems occur all the time. Also once a car gets stuck, pulling over is hard because… it’s stuck.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com