Hacker News Reader

Comment by nerdbert | Hacker News Reader

> The horrific crash occurred at 9:35 p.m. at Market and Fifth streets after the traffic light turned green, giving the Cruise car and other car — which had been waiting side-by-side for the light — the right to enter the intersection where a woman was walking, according to video of the crash

In fact, the driver of the car did not have "the right to enter the intersection" if it meant they were going to run a pedestrian over, no matter what color the light was.

How did we get to the point where reflexive empathy for drivers over everyone else has completely trumped basic understanding of both the law and human decency?

View on HN

> How did we get to the point where reflexive empathy for drivers over everyone else has completely trumped basic understanding of both the law and human decency?

This! I sometimes watch some of these dashcam accidents, and I can say most of them can be avoided if everyone had some basic human decency, but it always go “I have the right of way I don’t care” attitude, yes you have a green light but obviously you are seeing other car is crossing the road, try to stop/avoid it instead it of ramming it, especially you are still accelerating not already at full speed..

Someone sweat the wording of this.

Pedestrians always have the right of way including when breaking the law.

There’s no scenario when a driver has the right to run someone over.

So, the robot basically ignored the first law of robotics which coincidentally is the first law of driving.

Unless it is self defense. https://www.cnn.com/2015/05/20/us/new-york-bikers-attack/ind...

>Pedestrians always have the right of way including when breaking the law.

This is not true, nor does it make sense. If you are in the middle of the highway going 70 mph and someone is standing on the side of the road wanting to cross you do not have to yield and stop your vehicle. Stopping in the middle of the highway is dangerous since it isn't excepted.

Pedestrians always have the right of way ... on roads where they can be. Pedestrians and cyclists are forbidden on 70 mph highways. If I ever see someone on foot on such highway, after doing my best to avoid that person, I'll call 911 asap to report it.

For anyone mad enough to claim right of way toward a pedestrian, in any situation, just think about the shitload of legal hurdles awaiting you down the road. Not worth it by any standard.

In Washington state (I don’t know CA rules), pedestrians have to yield to traffic if they are not crossing at an intersection, but they are still permitted to cross as long as they yield to traffic. The exception is if they cross between two intersections that are controlled by lights, then that is considered jay walking.

“Right of way” and “must yield” does not mean a car is allowed to hit a pedestrian who doesn’t follow the rules, of course. The pedestrian is just not following the rules and can be cited for that. But practically speaking, most collisions involving such situations are not faulted against the driver unless some other factor is involved. It’s still a mess for them, however.

They might not have the legal right of way, but you're still in trouble if you run them over. So by all means, just don't try to kill anybody even if you have right of way (I'm appalled I even have to say this).

Right of way has nothing to do with colliding with people or cars. If I enter a 4 way stop second, but ignore right of way and go first that doesn't mean I'm going to hit another car.

> So, the robot basically ignored the first law

you don't know that. She was first hit by a regular car and could have been hidden from the robot's view until after the initial collision.

No the robot was left holding the bag after a disgusting person drove into this pedestrian and as a result of hitting the pedestrian with their car tossed the pedestrian directly in front of the driverless car. Which immediately freaked out and tried it’s best to pick a safe failure mode… in this case it picked wrong and that’s a problem… but a human is clearly the primary offender here and the driverless car was given an out of context problem because the human broke the law by doing a hit and run on this pedestrian

Generally I agree, but it was not out of context problem. It is sort of real world occurrence drivers (both human and non) are expected to handle.

It did try to handle it, by coming to a complete stop as fast as possible and avoiding further movement. I definitely think it should be smart enough to not stop “on top of an obstacle” under the car… but as far as everything before it stopping on the pedestrians leg… seemed like it would be hard to get a human driver to do better given the likely lack of a lot of “hit and run happens right in front of me” training data… zebras vs horses and all that. I expect one they will definitely add more “accident close by” data to the training data… and two they will get the damn thing not to stop on top of an unknown obstacle.

This wouldn't have been a problem if there were two driverless cars.

This is correct—CA Vehicle Code § 21950. Unless the pedestrian literally jumped in front of the car, the car needed to stop, even with a green light. Of course, the actual application of the law can be subtle.

Oh come on, you're really just twisting semantics to the extreme to try to score a political point. It's obvious the article wasn't actually saying the car had the right to hit the woman.

In what way is pedestrian safety political? I have no political interests in this topic other than not wanting to be run over while walking around my city. I literally cannot trust drivers to follow the laws and plan my walks accordingly because I know drivers will ignore stop signs, red lights, etc.

Technically, it gives them the right to enter the intersection, but not the right to hit a pedestrian (or a car for that matter).

I've been trying to think this through a bit.

The way I understand it is: There are two cars waiting to go through an intersection. The Cruise and the Human-Driven car. The light turns green, and the Cruise's pathway through the intersection is clear.

A pedestrian is crossing the intersection in the path of the human-driven car, but not in the path of the Cruise.

Both cars enter the intersection, the human-driven car strikes the pedestrian, who then rolls off the human-driven car into the path of the Cruise, and is run-over the Cruise.

Of course, I haven't seen the accident, but if that's broadly correct, I'm not sure that this is the damning evidence of "driverless cars are unsafe" some people seem to be spinning it up to be.

It is a tragedy, but it seems to be a tragedy caused primarily by a human driver who struck a pedestrian, and a human pedestrian who ignored a traffic signal.

Should the bar for driverless cars be "able to predict when other vehicles will hit a pedestrian and roll that person in their path"?

Would a human-driven vhicle have done any better? If the places were reversed, would the Cruise have struck the pedestrian in the first place?

I think we're all right to be skeptical of machine-driven cars, but I'm not certain that this specific incident is a point against them.

> Should the bar for driverless cars be "able to predict when other vehicles will hit a pedestrian and roll that person in their path"?

JFC. How about "do not enter an intersection where pedestrians are present?"

Depending on the geometry of the scene its entirely possible the pedestrian was not visible to the self driving car until after they were struck by the first car.

> JFC. How about "do not enter an intersection where pedestrians are present?"

So no entering intersections at all in major cities during rush hour?

> Should the bar for driverless cars be "able to predict when other vehicles will hit a pedestrian and roll that person in their path"?

No, but in the case of pedestrians crossing the street it may be reasonable to expect a driverless car to avoid getting into a situation where that can happen. This will depend on details of traffic laws where it is operating.

What are the clearance rules in California for staying clear of pedestrians crossing the street?

Here in Washington it is that if they are in your half of the street or within one lane of your half you have to wait. For purposes of this rule your half of the street is all lanes moving in your direction.

No Washington driver should be going until either the pedestrian finishes crossing or there is at least one lane between the lanes in the car's direction and the lane the pedestrian is in.

If a human driver here goes early and hits the pedestrian and the pedestrian ends up in an adjacent lane they should still be safe from other cars that did not go early.

In California, aside from pedestrians in a crosswalk having right of way, a driver approaching a crosswalk with a pedestrian:

> ... shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian.

In addition, all of the rules for pedestrians (no jaywalking, don't dash off the curb in front of a car, even in a crosswalk) include a provision that state they do not "relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within the [roadway or crosswalk]"

> ... shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian.

This is great in principle but in practice cars will just drive straight at you even when you are crossing on a walk signal.

Coming from a country where the walk signal means only pedestrians can be in the crosswalk this almost got me killed the other night.

I was hoping self driving cars would help things but it seems they drive straight for you too.

This regionally varies. Where I live (also in California), cars stop for pedestrians who appear they are about to cross at uncontrolled intersections. Other places it feels like playing a game of chicken.

The person was not in a crosswalk, according to this account from a reporter who saw Cruise's video

https://twitter.com/BigadShaban/status/1709178267217842320

The change on twitter to not show replies, mixed with multi-message splitting is infuriating and should 100% disqualify twitter links from being posted. (I feel the same about paywalled articles FWIW)

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1709178267217842320.html

Thanks. That was useful. We should replace all the Twitter links with those instead.

Could the Cruise vehicle even "see" the pedestrian in this case before they'd already been struck by the other vehicle and thrown into the path of the Cruise?

I don't think you can enter an intersection if not hitting a pedestrian means you would be blocking that intersection...

The state I learned to drive in didn't have an anti-gridlock law[1], so I had to look this up for California. The text of the anti-gridlock law is:

> Notwithstanding any official traffic control signal indication to proceed, a driver of a vehicle shall not enter an intersection or marked crosswalk unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection or marked crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle driven without obstructing the through the passage of vehicles from either side

Assuming the pedestrian counts as being on the "other side of the intersection" and prevents there from being sufficient space to "accommodate the vehicle being driven" I think you are correct.

1: They would put up a "do not block intersection" sign anywhere that this became a problem, and then you could get ticketed for disobeying a road sign.

Interesting to know. I don't drive but I saw enough how getting a car in the way of other cars (or pedestrians to slightly lesser degree) without already having a way out is a dice roll. Thought it might not be allowed

> In fact, the driver of the car did not have "the right to enter the intersection" if it meant they were going to run a pedestrian over, no matter what color the light was.

I've been in this situation before. I'm the third car in a line going on a green light at a light, and all of a sudden an unhoused neighbor pops in the intersection crossing, I slam on my brakes because I don't have the "right" to hit him, but damn, that was close.

If someone essentially jumps into traffic, you probably will be found to be not at fault if you hit the person. Not that you wouldn't do everything in your power to avoid it.

In many cases you won't be found at fault, and probably in the vast majority of cases you won't be found criminally at fault (and in some jurisdictions, you are at fault just because you are in a car, and it doesn't matter how poorly the pedestrian behaved). However, it would still be a mess physically and mentally. No one wants that experience in their head for the rest of their lives.

An argument regularly put forward by Ashley Neale (YouTuber and driving instructor, and erstwhile soccer player) in the U.K.. Not being found at fault isn't the only factor.

I think this is probably just bad wording on the part of the author. But I do think it's bad wording partially caused by a messed up view of the world vis a vis pedestrians and cars.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com