this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2023
285 points (97.7% liked)

News

23641 readers
4202 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] JoBo@feddit.uk 72 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Should the Cruise car have not started moving if there was a person still on the crosswalk? This whole sad affair raises many questions.

There are some questions but "should cars start moving while a person is still on the crosswalk?" is surely not one of them.

[–] medgremlin@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A different question I have is whether or not the cars have transponders or other communication devices to automatically call emergency services in case of accidents. I'm assuming not because they would probably have a lot of junk calls and I doubt the company would have spent the time to create an algorithm for when to call 911 if they didn't create an algorithm for what to do if there's a pedestrian in a crosswalk.

That's one of the big downsides of these driverless cars: if a human accidentally ran over the victim, they have the capability to get out of the car to assess the situation, call 911, and offer aid to the victim. An empty car can only ever just sit there with its hazard lights on and maybe call for emergency services.

[–] Unaware7013@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The auto-driving company should be required to have something like an on-star operator available any time the vehicle receives an impact/shock above a certain threshold and any time physical safety measures are required. The local governments should not have to pay for the externalities created by these 'disruptive technology' jerks, especially when there are literal lives on the line.

[–] Chozo@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

Cruise has this. I actually applied for the position after my contract doing the same thing with Waymo ended (but was unfortunately ghosted). They've got a team of people who monitor the fleets in real time, mostly just helping a "stuck" car by identifying any objects or street signs that the SDC has been confused by, so that it can proceed with its course. But they also have protocols in place for reporting any collisions as soon as they've happened, as well. Willing to bet that Cruise called emergency services before anybody on the scene even did.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

A person laying on the ground in a crosswalk was likely never considered by the team to include in their training data. Those outlier situations are exactly what real world data is needed for. And the only way to properly train for most of these situations is to drive in the real world. The real world isn't perfect situations and nice lines on fresh asphalt so while base training in perfect situations is useful, it will still miss the exact same situation in a real world environment with crappy infrastructure.

Not sure what or how Cruise uses the data collected in real-time, but I can see camera visuals categorizing a person laying in the crosswalk as something like damage to painted lines, and small debris that can be ignored. Other sensors like radar and lidar might have categorized returns as something like echoes or false results that could be ignored, again because a person laying in the crosswalk is extremely unlikely. False data returns happen all the time with things like radar and lidar, millions of data points are ignored as outliers or info that can be safely ignored, and sometimes that categorization is incorrect.

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well if you know you need backup with edge cases, why isnt there a human in the car with controls?

[–] Duranie@lemmy.film 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not only that, but no matter whether it can identify a person as a person, cars shouldn't be driving over objects that are child sized or larger.

[–] Chozo@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

These cars won't even drive over a fire hose laid out across the road (this was literally a test we did regularly when I worked on Waymo's SDCs). They definitely won't drive over a person (intentionally).

Inertia is a factor here. Cars can't stop on a dime. By the time the pedestrian was knocked in front of the SDC, there was likely not enough time to have possibly avoided hitting her, just due to physics.

[–] JoBo@feddit.uk 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

A person laying on the ground in a crosswalk was likely never considered by the team to include in their training data

I didn't bother reading any further than this. The person was on the crosswalk when both cars started moving. Neither car should have been moving while anyone was still on the crosswalk.

[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That was the exact moment I called bullshit as well. You'd damn well better plan for people tripping and falling. It happens all the time, but generally is pretty minor if not exacerbated by being run over. This is like saying they didn't train it on people holding canes or in wheelchairs.

[–] JoBo@feddit.uk 5 points 1 year ago

It's not about the ability to recognise someone lying in the road (although they obviously do need to be able to recognise something like that).

She was still walking, upright, on the crosswalk when both cars started moving. No car, driverless or otherwise, should be moving forward just because the lights changed.

[–] mars296@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Thats the whole point of their comment. The car did not recognize anyone was on the crosswalk because it was never trained to look for people laying in the crosswalk.

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And that's fine. But if it's unable to recognize any object in the road, it's not fit for purpose. The fact that the object was a person just makes it so much worse.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml 35 points 1 year ago

Oh, this company is not doing itself any favors.

There needs to be full transparency on these fleets rather than having governments bend over backwards in the name of trade secrets. We’ve gone absolutely too far in that direction with everything from vehicles on our streets to fracking chemicals in our groundwater.

[–] just_change_it@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

We desperately need footage of this to make any conclusions.

The human driver hit her first, and knocked her into the neighboring lane...

So she was hit and flung into another lane...

...directly in front of a Cruise autonomous vehicle (AV) that was driving around by itself with no-one on board. The self-driving car then ran her over and came to a stop on top of her body, turning on its hazard lights. Her leg was pinned down by the back tire.

So it stopped Like others have mentioned, driving over someone under a car can cause more injury than not moving. Was she screaming to move forward/move back? Was she flung in a way that a human driver could have stopped in time?

If this was just a hit and run and there was no footage like what was provided by the ai car it could be that the victim or her family would be 100% on the hook for the medical bill. It will be interesting to see if the perpetrator is found and the footage surfaces with details so we can get some answers.

edit: From another article

The initial impact was severe and launched the pedestrian directly in front of the AV.

[–] Salamendacious@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I'm hoping that the car has multiple cameras recording so maybe the hit-and-run driver will be caught and prosecuted. That said, unless I misunderstood the article, I think the driverless car (DC) didn't do a horrible job here. It sounded like the victim was struck and flung in front of the DC and it stopped (unfortunately on top of her). I don't know if I could have reacted better. The article wasn't clear but it read like the car contacted the police and the police instructed it to remain where it was, which is what I would have done if I were driving a car. The DC was then lifted off the woman by emergency personnel. We can't expect DCs to be magically perfect. Just like we don't expect people to be perfect. A DC is only as good as it's programming. Hopefully this incident will be studied and if a better solution is found that can be integrated into the DCs operations. I really feel bad for the woman here. I don't know but even if she shouldn't have been walking no one deserves that. Let's hope the hit-and-run driver is caught.

[–] cmbabul@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (3 children)

How relieved the original drive must feel

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"I didn't cause those injuries, it was the driverless cars" might actually work here...

maybe. eh. the car company probably has better lawyers.

[–] cmbabul@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah but the focus will be on the driverless car, I’m not saying they are blameless, just that the general heat and attention will probably not be on them now

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Im not sure that is a problem.

Autonomous vehicles are still mostly half baked, and the question of liability of who gets the blame hasn’t even preheated the oven.

The reality is company’s like waymo are using their cars in SF precisely to harvest training data because they can’t finish it without real world data- the physical driving a car is easy; interacting with humans is not.

[–] nocturne213@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

One of my son’s coworkers was just killed in a similar incident. Woman hits a pedestrian, she freaks out and calls her boyfriend instead of emergency services, boyfriend arrives and runs over the injured pedestrian ensuring he was dead.

They are unsure which vehicle actually killed him.

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Cupid's arrow was dead on target however.

[–] medgremlin@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago

I hope both of them are getting brought up on first degree murder charges for that.

[–] JoBo@feddit.uk 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Why? Hit and run is a serious offence and the driverless car has it all on camera.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah, but the general public are morons who tend to blame the wrong thing.

[–] JoBo@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago

What have the general public got to do with it? This is a criminal offence, not a viral bit of gossip.

[–] Hillock@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The general public is irrelevant here. If it weren't for the self driving car the hit and run wouldn't even have made the news. If it all this makes it worse for the driver.

And I don't think there is a wrong party to blame. Both are equally fucked up.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

If it weren't for the self driving car the hit and run wouldn't even have made the news.

That is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Infernal@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

”The driver of the other vehicle fled the scene, and at the request of the police, the AV was kept in place.”

Hopefully not while still on top of her!

[–] baggins@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago

If you get stuck under a car the fire dept is going to come lift it off of you. They aren't going to try and drive it off that would almost surely cause further injuries.

[–] fiat_lux@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago

Oof for that edge-case, in every sense. I hope the victim recovers with no long-term consequences. Truly horrific.

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, if she survives, she’s rich!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] hardly_alex@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They're already turning on us!

There was a Futurama episode about this day...

[–] RalphFurley@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Reminds me of someone I knew that would keep a pint of Jack in his trunk. He drove drunk constantly and it was there for when if he ever got into an accident he was prepared to run out of the car, pop the trunk, and pound the bottle in front of all the witnesses.

Can't prove he was drunk at the time of the accident.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 21 points 1 year ago (4 children)

There is zero chance that would work.

[–] chakan2@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There's a low chance of that working...but it's not zero with the right legal team.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

With the right legal team you can kick the police in the balls and piss on their car and get away with it.

[–] SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I know I’ve read of at least one successful case where the person fled the scene and went home, then claimed he was drinking at home. Honestly, though, there’s so many things that factor into whether an individual gets arrested or released that we’d need more examples to differentiate between just letting someone go and This One Simple Trick Judges Hate.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

Fleeing the scene is completely different than chugging alcohol at the scene.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

With a half competent lawyer it could.

It's up to the police to show you were driving while intoxicated. You have witnesses corroborating that you were drinking after the accident. Any field sobriety, or blood test they give you would be worthless because it would be after that.

I'm sure someone has tried this before somewhere.

[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"I wasn't drinking and driving, officer. And I'll prove it by drinking out of this open container!".

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Holy shit that was close. I gotta relax, having ptd issues. Must self medicate...

[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This kind of thing has been repeated amd handed down for like a century. But I've never ever heard of anyone actually doing it, much less having it work.

[–] cmbabul@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It might work depending on how much your lawyer costs

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

At that point anything works.

[–] Saganastic@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

That sounds like a terrible legal defense. Yes - I had alcohol in my car, and I was pounding it at the time of the accident. But trust me, I was totally sober when I actually hit that person.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Unaware7013@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

You might not be able to prove it, but anyone willing to chug alcohol in front of witnesses to have that kind of plausible deniability can easily be assumed to have already been drunk to start with. That just doesn't seem like it would hold up to the 'reasonable doubt' standard...

load more comments
view more: next ›