3 ms·

So basically, according to The Newyorker, a Google self-driving car was at least partially at fault for a hit-and-run causing serious injury and property damage

So basically, according to The Newyorker, a Google self-driving car was at least partially at fault for a hit-and-run causing serious injury and property damage. Everyone knew about it, everyone watched the video, but no one saw fit to report the incident or take responsibility. So all the claims about 10 million miles without any serious incident are, effectively, false. What else are they hiding? How safe these cars really are?

hnaccy 8y ago
I thought I was having intense deja vu but google has this archived form two days ago. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Ca1CO631OSsJ:https://news.ycombinator.com/item%3Fid%3D18223066+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-b-1-ab https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Ca1CO6... Does hackernews move posts around and change their timestamps?
- Deimorz 8y ago
  I can't remember if there's a specific term for it, but I believe HN has some way of giving a story a "second chance", which must have been used here and seems to involve resetting the timestamps. I don't know if this link will continue working, but if you look at it through this view, the comment that you're replying to shows as "2 days ago": https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=oldgradstudent&next=18223066 https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=oldgradstudent&next=... But if you link to it directly, it shows as (currently) "4 hours ago": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18223066 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18223066 I can understand the second-chance idea, but lying about when comments were posted is very strange.
mmmmmmmmm 8y ago
It certainly wasn't a hit-and-run because you can't have a hit-and-run if you don't hit anything. I'd be curious to see the video; it sounds like the other driver could have easily adjusted to the Google car by braking and merging in behind it.
shkkmo 8y ago
> So basically, according to The Newyorker, a Google self-driving car was at least partially at fault for a hit-and-run causing serious injury and property damage. That's pretty hyperbolic and loose with the facts. You can't call it a hit and run, because Google's car did not hit the other vehicle. You cannot say that Google was at fault for the incident because they had the right of way. While slowing down to let the other car merge would have been safer for everybody, it is on the merging vehicle to ensure they have space to merge safely and to safely respond if vehicles in the lane they are trying to forcibly merge into doesn't make space for them. There is certainly a point to be made about what type of incidents are being reported. Incidents like this, where the self driving car behaves unexpectedly but legally are important information as we try to create the regulatory framework for self-driving vehicles.
- oldandtired 8y ago
  > You cannot say that Google was at fault for the incident because they had the right of way. It is interesting to note that the concept of "right of way" has been removed from various jurisdictions in Australia. We now have many "give way" rules. Basically, if someone is supposed to give way to you and you could have prevented an accident and didn't then you are considered proportionally at fault with the other person. Not that many people take notice, but you are supposed to drive defensively here and work to avoid accidents. The only ones who have any sort of "right of way" are emergency service vehicles like ambulance, fire and police. One thing I encourage the young people I know is to take up the various "defensive" driving courses that are available.

hnaccy 8y ago

I thought I was having intense deja vu but google has this archived form two days ago. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Ca1CO631OSsJ:https://news.ycombinator.com/item%3Fid%3D18223066+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-b-1-ab https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Ca1CO6... Does hackernews move posts around and change their timestamps?

Deimorz 8y ago
I can't remember if there's a specific term for it, but I believe HN has some way of giving a story a "second chance", which must have been used here and seems to involve resetting the timestamps. I don't know if this link will continue working, but if you look at it through this view, the comment that you're replying to shows as "2 days ago": https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=oldgradstudent&next=18223066 https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=oldgradstudent&next=... But if you link to it directly, it shows as (currently) "4 hours ago": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18223066 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18223066 I can understand the second-chance idea, but lying about when comments were posted is very strange.

mmmmmmmmm 8y ago

It certainly wasn't a hit-and-run because you can't have a hit-and-run if you don't hit anything. I'd be curious to see the video; it sounds like the other driver could have easily adjusted to the Google car by braking and merging in behind it.

shkkmo 8y ago

> So basically, according to The Newyorker, a Google self-driving car was at least partially at fault for a hit-and-run causing serious injury and property damage. That's pretty hyperbolic and loose with the facts. You can't call it a hit and run, because Google's car did not hit the other vehicle. You cannot say that Google was at fault for the incident because they had the right of way. While slowing down to let the other car merge would have been safer for everybody, it is on the merging vehicle to ensure they have space to merge safely and to safely respond if vehicles in the lane they are trying to forcibly merge into doesn't make space for them. There is certainly a point to be made about what type of incidents are being reported. Incidents like this, where the self driving car behaves unexpectedly but legally are important information as we try to create the regulatory framework for self-driving vehicles.

oldandtired 8y ago
> You cannot say that Google was at fault for the incident because they had the right of way. It is interesting to note that the concept of "right of way" has been removed from various jurisdictions in Australia. We now have many "give way" rules. Basically, if someone is supposed to give way to you and you could have prevented an accident and didn't then you are considered proportionally at fault with the other person. Not that many people take notice, but you are supposed to drive defensively here and work to avoid accidents. The only ones who have any sort of "right of way" are emergency service vehicles like ambulance, fire and police. One thing I encourage the young people I know is to take up the various "defensive" driving courses that are available.