Hacker News Reader

Comment by sshine | Hacker News Reader

Until further investigated, this is FUD.

The term FUD makes sense in low-risk applications where the benefit of the doubt ought to be given. In safety-critical contexts it should be completely reversed, and confidence, certainty and trust should be looked at extremely critically.

Human drivers kill 30,000+ per year in the US alone. Development of an automated driving option is a safety-critical context, and that requires real-world deployment experience.

The precautionary principle is not what is called for here.

Your argument has the form of: "We have to do something. This is something, therefore we have to do this."

You've failed to establish automated driving as a safer alternative, let alone the best practical solution. The fact that these cars can't even move out of the way of emergency vehicles proves they aren't ready for testing on the public now.

> requires real-world deployment experience.

Not at this stage it doesn't. They haven't exhausted the utility of simulated training and training on closed courses. They're testing on the public (human experimentation without informed consent) because it's cheaper and they can get away with it, not because they must.

You've failed to establish automated driving as a safer alternative,

And you've failed to establish anything as a safer alternative. (Want to get Americans out of their cars? Bring guns. You'll need a lot of them.)

Get out of the way of the people who are trying to make things better, please.

> And you've failed to establish anything as a safer alternative.

I don't have, but since you've asked here are some possibilities, pick and choose as many as you like: ban cars, mandate breathalyzer interlocks, revise safety standards, improve collision avoidance systems in human-driven cars.

> Get out of the way of the people who are trying to make things better, please

Trying to make things better doesn't give you license to actually make things worse. Good intentions don't count if I think what you're trying is actually making things worse.

> Get out of the way

No.

Well, you know, we all want to change the world.

I believe you’re citing a stat corresponding to the number of traffic fatalities. That doesn’t mean in all of those cases one person killed another as you implied. For example if someone dies after drunk driving and crashes themselves into a tree that doesn’t seem right to say “the driver killed someone”

Having trouble finding a charitable way to interpret your point here. I don't think anyone should die as a result of drunk driving.

> Development of an automated driving option is a safety-critical context, and that requires real-world deployment experience.

All the more reason not to fuck things up at this stage. Precautionary principl is very appropriate with new tech in a safety-critical context.

More people are dying with unnecessary precaution because we keep humans behind the wheel.

It isn't FUD, it's dumb autonomous vehicles won't get out of the way. Just force them to allow human intervention, a person gets in and moves it. What's the big deal? It shouldn't even be restricted to emergency personnel.

If people steal them Cruise can file charges and consider it an expense of doing business.

I'm bearish on self driving usually but this seems blown out of porportions.

1) I don't think it was in the way. A lane was open to the right lane but it waited 90s for a firetruck to move in the left lane before it continued on.

2) If I am paying for a ride in a Cruise and some random person hops in the front seat to "relocate" the car because it is inconviencing them - I will not be happy. Safety issue, etc.

3) We don't know if the patient would have died anyways. It was only a 90 second delay.

4) "after" in the title is being used as temporally after. There were a lot of things that happened before you could attribute to the cause of death - signaling out this one is sensationalist.

1) it took 90s to prepare for transport before being able to move. This is fast but also standard.

2) If you are in the car, and I as a firefighter enter, I am going to announce that and your opinion doesn’t matter. I am moving it for safetys sake. I will be safe, kind, and take your safety into consideration. But that you will be late to work does not enter.

3+4) I have extricated patients, in massive accidents, alive when I package them on the stretcher, and then only hear they died later. It fucking sucks. Was it me not getting that roof popped, or door opened fast enough? Was it the amb? Traffic? Was it the taxi who refused to move?

It sticks with you. It’s a hard part of the job.

2) I agree with you but normally a car is locked from the inside and random people (firefighter or not) shouldn't be able to just open it via the usual methods. Police still have to bust out windows to extract people all the time. They don't get a special unlock button.

I agree with you in general. I'm sorry you have to go through things like that.

Yes but a key assigned to apparatus like fire will fix that concern. We already have keys to buildings in the trucks, basically. This is no different.

2) sure.. and you won't be happy if someone carjacks your uber either I imagine? get out of the car.

What kind of question is that? Of course I wouldn't be happy. Would you? What does me getting out of the car have to do with anything?

Your stated argument against allowing human control of the vehicle is that it presents a safety issue, implying that you could be car jacked.

You could be car jacked while riding in a taxi/lyft/uber/etc. It’s unclear why you think this any different.

Usually a taxi/lyft/uber has the doors locked and if someone tried to open them the driver would drive away.

In this situation of yours it sounds like anyone can just walk up to a AV and open the door and get in.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com