4 ms·

The thing that stands out to me is that the driverless car parked on top of the victim until the fire department arrived and extricated the victim. There are fe

The thing that stands out to me is that the driverless car parked on top of the victim until the fire department arrived and extricated the victim. There are few vehicle-pedestrian crashes where the offending vehicle parked on top of the vehicle and wouldn't be moved; screaming bystanders are usually effective at compelling a driver to roll off the victim. This isn't a simple matter of "humans good drivers, robots bad drivers"; it's an example of "humans can improvise and respond reasonably to novel situations; robots cannot reliably interpret and respond to novel situations."

wskinner 3y ago
It’s not at all clear to me that a hypothetical scenario where the driver moved the car after running over the person would have a better outcome than waiting for first responders to jack up the car (see e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37753867 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37753867). You claim “ There are few vehicle-pedestrian crashes where the offending vehicle parked on top of the vehicle and wouldn't be moved” - what is your evidence for that? 2.3 million people are injured in car accidents in the United States per year. Finally, it is plausible that AVs will have a higher frequency of certain very specific failure modes relative to human drivers, while having dramatically lower overall frequency of accidents where people are injured. This type of reporting obscures that.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
lsaferite 3y ago
> According to Cruise, police had directed the company to keep the vehicle stationary, apparently with the pedestrian stuck beneath it. > While spokespeople for the Police Department did not have an officer’s report Tuesday morning to clarify exactly when police made the order, they said it is standard procedure not to move cars at the scene of wrecks — regardless of whether a human is operating them.

wskinner 3y ago

It’s not at all clear to me that a hypothetical scenario where the driver moved the car after running over the person would have a better outcome than waiting for first responders to jack up the car (see e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37753867 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37753867). You claim “ There are few vehicle-pedestrian crashes where the offending vehicle parked on top of the vehicle and wouldn't be moved” - what is your evidence for that? 2.3 million people are injured in car accidents in the United States per year. Finally, it is plausible that AVs will have a higher frequency of certain very specific failure modes relative to human drivers, while having dramatically lower overall frequency of accidents where people are injured. This type of reporting obscures that.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

lsaferite 3y ago

> According to Cruise, police had directed the company to keep the vehicle stationary, apparently with the pedestrian stuck beneath it. > While spokespeople for the Police Department did not have an officer’s report Tuesday morning to clarify exactly when police made the order, they said it is standard procedure not to move cars at the scene of wrecks — regardless of whether a human is operating them.