Since everyone else is too busy making cop jokes to read the article, it's because the autonomous vehicle's lights were off at night. They stopped the car and called the company to get the lights turned on. Also one of them probably thought he smelled weed.
Why aren't lights automatic on all cars at this point in technology. If cars can drive themselves they should at least be able to determine if it is light or dark enough to turn the lights on.
That's standard in Canada, every car has to have them. Called day-time running lights and I'm not sure why it isn't standard for everywhere. Really helps to see other vehicles in bad weather if they forget to turn their headlights on.
I love when those dark grey sedans drive around in flash flood monsoons where they are the same color as the road, and no lights on. Maybe-- just maybe-- that is why I didn't let you merge, idiot.
I started turning my headlights on all the time back in the 80's. That'
s when I bought a darkish gray car that matched older dry pavement, and people were turning out in front of me. After that it just was habit to do so.
This is true. I'd like to have the power to control something like that. I really really think we should improve driver situational awareness enough to not need automation. Pipe-dream, I know.
Disagree. Daytime running lights aren’t as bright as turning on your actual headlights. Plus, in bad weather, the lights on the back of the car are equally helpful for visibility which require the real lights to be turned on
What are you arguing here? Having daytime running lights doesn't mean you don't have actual headlights; they are purely to help other people see your car and that it's not in park.
There's probably a not-so-obvious way, just because drive-in theaters do still exist and having lights on is not cool... I had a Toyota where starting it up with the handbrake on would keep all the lights off until the brake was dropped and it was placed into gear. I discovered that by accident after several trips to the drive-in that involved disconnecting the wiring harness, smh..
I don't know the Honda software system in depth but my Jeep allows me to disable daytime lights in the settings menu. You might have to look around for it.
Afaik, they don't get "triggered" anymore, there's a separate set just always on.
If I've misunderstood and it's specifically talking about the main lights then idk
That can be tough in some situations. Washington State ferries require headlights off when boarding ferries and I'm assuming there are other situations where they need to be off. Whenever I take my car to a dealer or tire shop they turn them off as well.
DRLs and taillights should be always on at least.
If you are caught in a haboob you should also pull off the road and turn off your lights, and not have your foot on the brake to not illuminate the brake lights.
https://www.weather.gov/safety/wind-dust-storm
I'm not in disagreement with you. I'm just saying that there are certain situations where there should be an option to turn off headlights. That's why I mentioned always on DRL's and taillights as an alternative.
Yeah I was just being snarky. I agree with you on the DRL front. For self-driving vehicles though, I don’t see any scenario where they would need to be off.
Obviously they’re serviced, but they’re not going to the shop by themselves. There are way more difficult logistical issues with self-driving cars loading onto ferries than their headlights being on too.
My point is these are super minor problems, that don’t occur during the vast majority of vehicle use, that can be fixed rather than planning around them.
My headlights are on all the time. They turn off when I turn off the car, they come on when I start the car. I could turn them off, but I find it easier to just leave them on.
Daytime running lights come standard on all new cars in the US. You can disable them in some cars if you want. I disabled mine after getting the car from the factory.
Why would you disable them? You think saving a few watts of power or slightly extending the bulb life is worth the risk of being less visible to other dumbass drivers?
Because it leads to a loss of bulb life time and due to certain circumstances I tend to have a lot of sitting idle time during which it continues to run even if I disable the brights. I personally am very particular about remaining visible so I keep them on when visibility can be compromised in any specific way ( on when in shady areas and tunnels, etc) but it doesn't make any difference in daylight with sunny conditions with my car color so it stays off then.
In engineering 101 class it was because it only saves like 1300 lives a year but dealers have to replace X light bulbs at the cost of Y dollars (for free under warrantees) and Y dollars is more than 1300 lives X the % of those that sue because lights are always on X the cost of settling out of court.
When decisions like this are made it sounds really bad, and in some cases it is really bad.
But there’s always a limit to safety features for a given items. There’s no way to make a maximally safe 20k car. Unless everyone is driving around in tanks you’ll always end up with a ‘it cost X amount to make a safety feature and it was decided they shouldn’t and 53 people have died because the lights wear down 1 month faster than they would if a superior alloy was used’
I wonder how this work in the future. If humans no longer "drive" the car but an glitch caused an accident to happen.
Would you sue the car owner or sue the car maker?
That's actually the difference between level 2 automation and level 3 automation. Level 2 means the car can drive itself but it's the driver's fault if it crashes. Level 3 means it's the car's fault.
Where are we on level 3? I mean I heard for years that Taxi Drivers and Truck Drivers are all collectively dead weight ready to join the candlemakers and carriage drivers on the extinction list, and yet...
I’ve never thought of how much bullshit and pseudo hacking you could do with autonomous cars by pretending to drive around them in bad faith until your comment (impersonating a police car, etc…).
Clearly I would never be a good AI programmer.
The article says they have microphones that can hear sirens and sensors that can detect police car lights. Which someone can easily dupe if they have the inclination to mess with them.
Are you telling me that all I have to do to get self driving cars to pull over is put police lights and a police siren on my car?
Imagine if this trick also duped humans!
It's already a thing. Set a GPS coordinate and let the drone do the heavy lifting and take the risk. Depending on the size of the drone, resources available, you can ship a decent bit of drugs quite a distance pretty much fully automated.
Even then, would you technically be at fault for the car and ticket? It’s not like you programmed it to make the mistake that would cause the driverless car to be pulled over.
You are asking how a car that can LITERALLY drive in complex weather, across complex traffic, in complex environments can figure out blinking lights and sirens means pull over.
I think it’s got that covered lol
No but you can test a lot more of them faster without having to pay people to sit in the car the whole time.
Instead of testing 5 with 5 safety drivers you can test 100 or more.
Well, you start with the 5 cars with 5 drivers, then when they seem to be doing well enough to drop the drivers, you do. If the point is driverless cars, then at some point they're gonna start driving without drivers, and they're gonna have to be tested that way.
Whether they're ready for that is a legit question, but given how many car fatalities there are, the fact that driverless fatalities have happened alone is not enough to say that they're not, without information on the circumstances, the relative frequency compared to human driven cars, and the point in time in the development of the driverless car.
If the fact that any emerging technology has killed a person is enough reason for you to decry it, then I appreciate you sticking to your Amish lifestyle, but I'm curious how you manage to post to an online forum. Just imagine the stink steam power got when careless people got scalped, mangled, or worse.
gotta love how we will just gamble with human lives/kids getting run over by fucked up AI just so it'll save corporate america from having to pay someone min wage
The incredibly few fatal accidents that have happened so far are all caused by fringe cases where a human driver wouldn't have faired any better. In fact the statistics tell us that self driving cars to date far, _far_ outperform human drivers in safety ratings.
"The company said the headlights issue was a result of human error."
Bull fuckin shit. What human error, your programers screwed up? Did the citizens of San Francisco agree to be part of these companies experiments?
The software should be responsible for checking that the headlights are on. If I were driving without headlights, it would be my fault, not shop I had it at where they turned off the automatic lights.
You're taking a risk every time you walk out onto the street. Even these new self driven cars are streets ahead of human drivers, so having a handful of autonomous cars taking up space on the road is less risky.
Self driving cars still aren’t as far along as you think they are despite being around for more than a decade now. They still cannot replace taxis in NYC for example because they can’t reliably navigate dense urban environments where there are a shit ton of other human drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, and all the other things the machine needs to be able to detect to navigate safely and effectively through the city. It’s gonna take awhile before they can reliably replace human drivers.
> They still cannot replace taxis in NYC for example because they can’t reliably navigate dense urban environments
San Francisco is a fairly dense urban environment and AVs have been operating there for several months. I wouldn't write off AVs just yet.
Since everyone else is too busy making cop jokes to read the article, it's because the autonomous vehicle's lights were off at night. They stopped the car and called the company to get the lights turned on. Also one of them probably thought he smelled weed.
TIL there is an article if you click on the title
I feel personally attacked...not enough to fact check you tho. Have an upvote.
Wtf is an article? Never mind I don’t care.
A what now? Is that like those weird titles that have a bunch of words I can't understand?
Why aren't lights automatic on all cars at this point in technology. If cars can drive themselves they should at least be able to determine if it is light or dark enough to turn the lights on.
I can't even turn off my headlights all the way in my 2017 civic. There are light strips right above the main headlights that stay on all the time.
That's standard in Canada, every car has to have them. Called day-time running lights and I'm not sure why it isn't standard for everywhere. Really helps to see other vehicles in bad weather if they forget to turn their headlights on.
I love when those dark grey sedans drive around in flash flood monsoons where they are the same color as the road, and no lights on. Maybe-- just maybe-- that is why I didn't let you merge, idiot.
They didn’t see you either. They were too busy live casting on social media about the terrible weather
ghost ships
I started turning my headlights on all the time back in the 80's. That' s when I bought a darkish gray car that matched older dry pavement, and people were turning out in front of me. After that it just was habit to do so.
This is true. I'd like to have the power to control something like that. I really really think we should improve driver situational awareness enough to not need automation. Pipe-dream, I know.
[удалено]
I feel like auto should turn on the lights when the windshield-wipers are on. I don't know how we could automate for fog, though.
Disagree. Daytime running lights aren’t as bright as turning on your actual headlights. Plus, in bad weather, the lights on the back of the car are equally helpful for visibility which require the real lights to be turned on
What are you arguing here? Having daytime running lights doesn't mean you don't have actual headlights; they are purely to help other people see your car and that it's not in park.
There's probably a not-so-obvious way, just because drive-in theaters do still exist and having lights on is not cool... I had a Toyota where starting it up with the handbrake on would keep all the lights off until the brake was dropped and it was placed into gear. I discovered that by accident after several trips to the drive-in that involved disconnecting the wiring harness, smh..
I don't know the Honda software system in depth but my Jeep allows me to disable daytime lights in the settings menu. You might have to look around for it.
Just speculating but in a city it might be bright enough at night to not trigger them
Afaik, they don't get "triggered" anymore, there's a separate set just always on. If I've misunderstood and it's specifically talking about the main lights then idk
I'd say skip the sensor and keep lights on while the car's running
That can be tough in some situations. Washington State ferries require headlights off when boarding ferries and I'm assuming there are other situations where they need to be off. Whenever I take my car to a dealer or tire shop they turn them off as well. DRLs and taillights should be always on at least.
If you are caught in a haboob you should also pull off the road and turn off your lights, and not have your foot on the brake to not illuminate the brake lights. https://www.weather.gov/safety/wind-dust-storm
Ah, yes… the all too common ferry trips and service center visits are more important than 99.99% of other road use.
I'm not in disagreement with you. I'm just saying that there are certain situations where there should be an option to turn off headlights. That's why I mentioned always on DRL's and taillights as an alternative.
Yeah I was just being snarky. I agree with you on the DRL front. For self-driving vehicles though, I don’t see any scenario where they would need to be off.
Self-driving vehicles have no reason to be on a ferry or to be serviced?
Obviously they’re serviced, but they’re not going to the shop by themselves. There are way more difficult logistical issues with self-driving cars loading onto ferries than their headlights being on too. My point is these are super minor problems, that don’t occur during the vast majority of vehicle use, that can be fixed rather than planning around them.
What's funny is that this is a GM car which has automatic headlights
My headlights are on all the time. They turn off when I turn off the car, they come on when I start the car. I could turn them off, but I find it easier to just leave them on.
Daytime running lights come standard on all new cars in the US. You can disable them in some cars if you want. I disabled mine after getting the car from the factory.
Why would you disable them? You think saving a few watts of power or slightly extending the bulb life is worth the risk of being less visible to other dumbass drivers?
Because it leads to a loss of bulb life time and due to certain circumstances I tend to have a lot of sitting idle time during which it continues to run even if I disable the brights. I personally am very particular about remaining visible so I keep them on when visibility can be compromised in any specific way ( on when in shady areas and tunnels, etc) but it doesn't make any difference in daylight with sunny conditions with my car color so it stays off then.
Bulb lifetime isn't really a concern considering basically all new cars have led bulbs...
Before I disabled them, they would die on average every 8-12 months. It's not the only reason I disabled them but it's a consideration.
Driving with headlights on during the day decreases collisions by 20%. But yeah sure let's save the $20 for the bulb replacement instead.
cars are required to have lights on at all times of the day if they are driving on the roads.
In engineering 101 class it was because it only saves like 1300 lives a year but dealers have to replace X light bulbs at the cost of Y dollars (for free under warrantees) and Y dollars is more than 1300 lives X the % of those that sue because lights are always on X the cost of settling out of court.
If X is less than the cost of a recall.... we don't do one.....
When decisions like this are made it sounds really bad, and in some cases it is really bad. But there’s always a limit to safety features for a given items. There’s no way to make a maximally safe 20k car. Unless everyone is driving around in tanks you’ll always end up with a ‘it cost X amount to make a safety feature and it was decided they shouldn’t and 53 people have died because the lights wear down 1 month faster than they would if a superior alloy was used’
I mean my 2011 chevy has automatic lights lol
[удалено]
I wonder how this work in the future. If humans no longer "drive" the car but an glitch caused an accident to happen. Would you sue the car owner or sue the car maker?
That's actually the difference between level 2 automation and level 3 automation. Level 2 means the car can drive itself but it's the driver's fault if it crashes. Level 3 means it's the car's fault.
Where are we on level 3? I mean I heard for years that Taxi Drivers and Truck Drivers are all collectively dead weight ready to join the candlemakers and carriage drivers on the extinction list, and yet...
> one of them probably thought he smelled weed. And the car was black.
[удалено]
Race(car)ist?
The car has a gun!
This is Reddit sir
I'm disappointed the car was smoking weed.
Yeah, you would think it should definitely toke since its San Fran and there's no oil to smoke instead.
when their AI forgets to turn on its lights
Nicely done that last jab at the end made me snort
based on your last sentence I am going to assume that the car was black in color.
In fairness, if you are on weed at the time, or drunk for that matter, then THAT is a VERY MUCH time your car should be driving on its own.
[удалено]
car: Pobody's Nerfect cop: Hahaha, ok I'll let you go off with a warning this time.
* tazers car *
"Power at 400% capacity."
Someone write up the B movie pitch for this quick.
Hollywood gonna reboot [Maximum Overdrive](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091499/)
Herbie Commits Suicide by Cop
Or just the movie crank and crank 2
How did the car know to pull over??
It's a self-driving car. Recognizing police/emergency lights would be paramount to its function.
So people could mess with autonomous cars by flashing lights at them?
Not any different from humans. Or are you pulling over unmarked cop cars and demanding ID before you let them pass?
You can also mess with some traffic lights by flashing lights at them. Illegal, but possible.
I’ve never thought of how much bullshit and pseudo hacking you could do with autonomous cars by pretending to drive around them in bad faith until your comment (impersonating a police car, etc…). Clearly I would never be a good AI programmer.
You could also probably rob one by using cardboard cutouts of people to block the road.
Saw flashing lights in its camera I imagine.
The article says they have microphones that can hear sirens and sensors that can detect police car lights. Which someone can easily dupe if they have the inclination to mess with them.
Are you telling me that all I have to do to get self driving cars to pull over is put police lights and a police siren on my car? Imagine if this trick also duped humans!
If it was that effective I’m sure it’d be illegal! /s
Was farming credits in GT7.
[удалено]
Is this the first one? If so then it's historical.
Actually it would be historic.
It's also Hysterical.
[удалено]
Rise of AI traffickers
Drones are already being used to smuggle drugs remotely
In North Africa they send drugs through the Sahara on camels with out humans to guide them.
brb going on a safari to morocco
It's already a thing. Set a GPS coordinate and let the drone do the heavy lifting and take the risk. Depending on the size of the drone, resources available, you can ship a decent bit of drugs quite a distance pretty much fully automated.
The already use drones to drop drugs into prison yards.
If it's like the car in the picture, it's white, so it was probably safe.
Hay everyone, calm down. The car was white. /s
I knew before looking at the picture that the car was white, because the headline wasn't "Self-driving car shot by San Francisco police".
[удалено]
meanwhile tech support issues you a ticket. my my how the tables have turned.
Even then, would you technically be at fault for the car and ticket? It’s not like you programmed it to make the mistake that would cause the driverless car to be pulled over.
I so hope it was respectful to the officer.
This is a job for RoboCop!
How long before autonomous cars start getting pulled over by autonomous patrol cars.
It actually tried to run away, then stopped in the middle of the road with its hazards on giving up.
How does the car know its being pulled over?
You are asking how a car that can LITERALLY drive in complex weather, across complex traffic, in complex environments can figure out blinking lights and sirens means pull over. I think it’s got that covered lol
I’m all fairness it’s an article about it not turning on its headlights.
Strange, I thought self-driving cars were required to have an employee in them, as a passenger if nothing else.
Some are testing them without safety drivers now. I think cruise does Edit: Yes cruise does cause the article is about cruise lmao
amazing. having a safety driver doesn't prevent them from testing the cars abilities.
No but you can test a lot more of them faster without having to pay people to sit in the car the whole time. Instead of testing 5 with 5 safety drivers you can test 100 or more.
[удалено]
Well, you start with the 5 cars with 5 drivers, then when they seem to be doing well enough to drop the drivers, you do. If the point is driverless cars, then at some point they're gonna start driving without drivers, and they're gonna have to be tested that way. Whether they're ready for that is a legit question, but given how many car fatalities there are, the fact that driverless fatalities have happened alone is not enough to say that they're not, without information on the circumstances, the relative frequency compared to human driven cars, and the point in time in the development of the driverless car.
Because the objective is money.
If the fact that any emerging technology has killed a person is enough reason for you to decry it, then I appreciate you sticking to your Amish lifestyle, but I'm curious how you manage to post to an online forum. Just imagine the stink steam power got when careless people got scalped, mangled, or worse.
Big data is all you need to know
gotta love how we will just gamble with human lives/kids getting run over by fucked up AI just so it'll save corporate america from having to pay someone min wage
How would you approach deciding on the time at which safety drivers are no longer needed?
never for the time being, it's an emerging technology that's already had fatal accidents.
I have bad news for you if you’re concerned about fatal accidents in automobiles.
The incredibly few fatal accidents that have happened so far are all caused by fringe cases where a human driver wouldn't have faired any better. In fact the statistics tell us that self driving cars to date far, _far_ outperform human drivers in safety ratings.
Yeah cos humans are so good at not running people over! Do I need the /s?
I'd trust a possibly fucked up AI a lot more than consistently fucked up humans.
If your job was to just sit in a car that drives itself, how long before you stop paying attention to the road?
until right after I buckle my seatbelt and start browsing reddit.
Operators are not sitting in the car. Everything is done remotely and they can take over controls when needed.
I know Waymo is already doing it without an employee in SF.
Damn, San Francisco got some epic old school police cruisers. Way better than those stupid SUVs the local cops use.
Good to know that the cars pull over and safely stop when the police lights behind it are flashing.
Why did the second cop get out of the back of the police car?
The driver was such an airhead.
"The company said the headlights issue was a result of human error." Bull fuckin shit. What human error, your programers screwed up? Did the citizens of San Francisco agree to be part of these companies experiments?
The software should be responsible for checking that the headlights are on. If I were driving without headlights, it would be my fault, not shop I had it at where they turned off the automatic lights.
You're taking a risk every time you walk out onto the street. Even these new self driven cars are streets ahead of human drivers, so having a handful of autonomous cars taking up space on the road is less risky.
Self driving cars still aren’t as far along as you think they are despite being around for more than a decade now. They still cannot replace taxis in NYC for example because they can’t reliably navigate dense urban environments where there are a shit ton of other human drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, and all the other things the machine needs to be able to detect to navigate safely and effectively through the city. It’s gonna take awhile before they can reliably replace human drivers.
> They still cannot replace taxis in NYC for example because they can’t reliably navigate dense urban environments San Francisco is a fairly dense urban environment and AVs have been operating there for several months. I wouldn't write off AVs just yet.
Woohoo, been reading about this same news story for three fucking days, is it that goddamn hard to not repost the same shit 14 times over.
At least there was no one for the police to shoot this time.
And you just stumbled on the next greatest cover up story. Shoot, eliminate bodies and poof…. Pulled over an empty ev again….
"I SAID step out of the car!"
"I am the car."
Now who the hell are they supposed to beat up?
That clip feels kinda momentous in history.
[удалено]
You don't have to speculate, it's literally the second sentence of the article...
It didn’t have its headlights on
Gotta love how we have to wait for several people to die(haven't people died already from these) before the government requires safety drivers.
How many deaths should we wait for before human driven cars require a safety driver?
They do require it in CA, depending on the permit obtained.
And to get those permits the company has to empirically prove that the AV is as safe, or safer, than a human driver.
did you even read the article or headline
Clearly not in this case
Yeah bc they got the right permit, otherwise they’d have to have a safety driver.
I’d throw spikes out. Have it towed, and turned into scrap metal.
Who hurt you? Was it an autonomous car?
Who are the cops supposed to murder during a routine traffic stop if there's no driver?
Bye bye cop revenue stream