6 ms·

I’m all for criticism of reckless self driving implementations but it seems this can’t be blamed on software: “ Two bus operators -- on board to supervise the

I’m all for criticism of reckless self driving implementations but it seems this can’t be blamed on software: “ Two bus operators -- on board to supervise the autonomous driving -- said they noticed the athlete, but thought he would stop walking as the bus was approaching, according to Japan's Asahi daily. The Mainichi daily said the bus automatically stopped but the operators pressed the start button as they did not think he would walk out on to the road.”

xoa 5y ago
>The Mainichi daily said the bus automatically stopped but the operators pressed the start button as they did not think he would walk out on to the road.” Yeah, if that's the case then this story is literally the 100% exact opposite of what the headline implies: it was the human drivers who were the weak link and caused an accident just is normally the case. Self-driving systems can be patient and just wait when in doubt, rather then feel any emotional temptation to make assumptions and get a move on.
- saalweachter 5y ago
  There was a thread on this earlier this (last?) week with a video of a Waymo car hesitating as a person walked near a cross walk.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- capableweb 5y ago
  I mean, yes, headline might be misleading but it's not "100% exact opposite of what the headline implies". The headline ("Visually impaired Paralympian hit by self-driving bus") implies that someone was hit by something, that something was a self-driving bus. All of that is true, and is what happened. What's left out though, is whoose fault it was, it's not part of the headline at all. One might think it was because of the self-driving system instead of a human, but it wasn't. So yes, misleading/clickbait it was, but not "100% exact opposite".
  - alexgmcm 5y ago
    It should just say "hit by bus" given the self-driving nature of the bus had nothing to do with the incident and in fact would have prevented it. But that wouldn't be news. It matters because most people will just read the headline and go away thinking self-driving technology is dangerous.
    - d0gbread 5y ago
      Sort of disagree... It's a misleading title but the fact that it's self-driving is what makes this story interesting. Title should have added 'after human intervention' for more clarity rather than less.
- darepublic 5y ago
  Why is it that the human drivers are the weak link. While driving through the city there are numerous times where pedestrians are waiting near cars and if they suddenly acted irrationally and stepped in front of the vehicle there would be a collision. Humans have to navigate that, a self driving system that refuses to attempt to read the intentions of pedestrians would be stalled forever. Not to mention in this story it could be the pedestrians fault and not on the human drivers.
travoc 5y ago
Who designed an autonomous bus with a “run over people anyway” button?
- nathancahill 5y ago
  You mean the gas pedal? Feature of ever vehicle since it's invention?
  - travoc 5y ago
    The use of a gas pedal implies a human operator is in control. This seems different than a “just go” button on a bus that is otherwise autonomous.
- Pick-A-Hill2019 5y ago
  I know that it is frowned on here at HN to ask 'did you read the article' however - The Mainichi daily said the bus automatically stopped but the operators pressed the start button as they did not think he would walk out on to the road. (fourth paragraph from the end). Perhaps you missed that part?
  - hulitu 5y ago
    The bus should have stopped even when the operators told it to continue. Basic safety design.
  - Lorean 5y ago
    But that's exactly what this question refers to...
  - mikestew 5y ago
    Missed what part? What you quoted is to me exactly the same as a "run people over anyway" button. Sure, you and the article author can call it a "start" button if you like, but in this case it served perfectly well as a "run people over regardless of what the bus computer says" button.
- Someone 5y ago
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Were the operators truly in the wrong or was it one of those classic cases of "self driving vehicle gets super skittish because it can't read body language", the operators overrode it based on body language and the other traffic participant did something unexpected and so it turned out the skittish AI was right? Without video any attempt at allocating fault is mostly speculation.

xoa 5y ago

>The Mainichi daily said the bus automatically stopped but the operators pressed the start button as they did not think he would walk out on to the road.” Yeah, if that's the case then this story is literally the 100% exact opposite of what the headline implies: it was the human drivers who were the weak link and caused an accident just is normally the case. Self-driving systems can be patient and just wait when in doubt, rather then feel any emotional temptation to make assumptions and get a move on.

saalweachter 5y ago
There was a thread on this earlier this (last?) week with a video of a Waymo car hesitating as a person walked near a cross walk.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
capableweb 5y ago
I mean, yes, headline might be misleading but it's not "100% exact opposite of what the headline implies". The headline ("Visually impaired Paralympian hit by self-driving bus") implies that someone was hit by something, that something was a self-driving bus. All of that is true, and is what happened. What's left out though, is whoose fault it was, it's not part of the headline at all. One might think it was because of the self-driving system instead of a human, but it wasn't. So yes, misleading/clickbait it was, but not "100% exact opposite".
- alexgmcm 5y ago
  It should just say "hit by bus" given the self-driving nature of the bus had nothing to do with the incident and in fact would have prevented it. But that wouldn't be news. It matters because most people will just read the headline and go away thinking self-driving technology is dangerous.
  - d0gbread 5y ago
    Sort of disagree... It's a misleading title but the fact that it's self-driving is what makes this story interesting. Title should have added 'after human intervention' for more clarity rather than less.
darepublic 5y ago
Why is it that the human drivers are the weak link. While driving through the city there are numerous times where pedestrians are waiting near cars and if they suddenly acted irrationally and stepped in front of the vehicle there would be a collision. Humans have to navigate that, a self driving system that refuses to attempt to read the intentions of pedestrians would be stalled forever. Not to mention in this story it could be the pedestrians fault and not on the human drivers.

travoc 5y ago

Who designed an autonomous bus with a “run over people anyway” button?

nathancahill 5y ago
You mean the gas pedal? Feature of ever vehicle since it's invention?
- travoc 5y ago
  The use of a gas pedal implies a human operator is in control. This seems different than a “just go” button on a bus that is otherwise autonomous.
Pick-A-Hill2019 5y ago
I know that it is frowned on here at HN to ask 'did you read the article' however - The Mainichi daily said the bus automatically stopped but the operators pressed the start button as they did not think he would walk out on to the road. (fourth paragraph from the end). Perhaps you missed that part?
- hulitu 5y ago
  The bus should have stopped even when the operators told it to continue. Basic safety design.
- Lorean 5y ago
  But that's exactly what this question refers to...
- mikestew 5y ago
  Missed what part? What you quoted is to me exactly the same as a "run people over anyway" button. Sure, you and the article author can call it a "start" button if you like, but in this case it served perfectly well as a "run people over regardless of what the bus computer says" button.
Someone 5y ago

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

Were the operators truly in the wrong or was it one of those classic cases of "self driving vehicle gets super skittish because it can't read body language", the operators overrode it based on body language and the other traffic participant did something unexpected and so it turned out the skittish AI was right? Without video any attempt at allocating fault is mostly speculation.