Trump administration re-evaluating self-driving car guidance(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Trump administration re-evaluating self-driving car guidance
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-selfdriving-idUSKBN1650WA
106 comments
This is a really difficult situation, in that lowering regulatory overhead would mean getting automated solutions to the public faster, and even if they weren't optimally safe they'd likely be vastly better than human drivers and the sooner we could reap that benefit the better. However, there is a substantial long-term risk to the viability of self-driving cars if any high-profile accidents do happen, because outside of Silicon Valley people generally trust themselves more than technology. So on the other hand it might be better to continue the dangerous status quo for longer, until regulatory framework can assure safety, so as to make the rollout of autonomous cars actually result in adoption of autonomous cars.
I've recently been disappointed by the "Uber's car ran a red light!" stories I've been seeing. I know a lot of people hate Uber for various reasons and there's every reason to stay cautious about making sure self-driving cars are predictable and have the right sensors on-board, but imagine if we saw a headline on CNN every time a human-driven car ran a red light.
There's no excuse for a self-driving car to run a red light, but human drivers do it millions of times every day and in most cases when we see it we just shake our heads and say "what is that fool thinking?!" But a self-driving car does it once and it's headline news for months.
There's no excuse for a self-driving car to run a red light, but human drivers do it millions of times every day and in most cases when we see it we just shake our heads and say "what is that fool thinking?!" But a self-driving car does it once and it's headline news for months.
What fuelled the headlines is that the car ran a light while engaging in legally dubious "cowboy" testing with real passengers.
The human analogy is "<politician> ran a red light while drunk". The point is that they made errors of judgement that then caused this unsafe situation, rather than it being a random accident. (Especially in this case, in which high-handed defiance of both principles and the law is an established narrative.)
The human analogy is "<politician> ran a red light while drunk". The point is that they made errors of judgement that then caused this unsafe situation, rather than it being a random accident. (Especially in this case, in which high-handed defiance of both principles and the law is an established narrative.)
It may indicate a repeatable bug. With self-driving cars, you have different problems than with humans. Tesla has three times hit a stopped vehicle projecting into the left edge of a traffic lane. (Those are just the ones for which there's dashcam video.) That's a design failure.
Humans fail in different ways, such as inattention.
Humans fail in different ways, such as inattention.
If a person causes a death in an accident we think "that ONE person made a bad decission, but most people would make a better decision".
If a self driving car does the same people will think "ALL cars will make the same bad decission in the same situation". And there is some truth to that.
If a self driving car does the same people will think "ALL cars will make the same bad decission in the same situation". And there is some truth to that.
if the contents of that fool's head were soon to be snapshotted and uploaded into the minds of hundreds of millions of drivers, it'd be headline news for months too.
That's a perfectly reasonable argument that Uber could have made. Instead they lied about what happened. Lying to the public (and regulators?) about how safe your vehicles are is, in my opinion, worse than running the light in the first place.
Right, but if a cop pulled over a random hypothetical person after they ran a red light, how would we all expect that conversation to happen?
"Do you know why I pulled you over?"
"No" lie #1
"Did you know you ran that red light back there?"
"No, it was yellow when I went through" lie #2
"Here's the ticket"
person shows up to court to fight the ticket by claiming their innocence, lie #3
Again, no excusing Uber's behavior, just pointing to a double standard. We fully expect human drivers to run red lights, and we fully expect them to lie about it. There's no excuse for Uber's response and no excuse for their software running a red light, but there's similarly no excuse for humans doing it. Yet humans do it all the time and no one really cares.
Like if we're going to report headline news every time a Tesla catches on fire, we should have breaking news stop-the-presses coverage every time a gasoline or diesel powered car catches on fire, too. But we don't because it's much more frequent, to the point where we almost expect it.
"Do you know why I pulled you over?"
"No" lie #1
"Did you know you ran that red light back there?"
"No, it was yellow when I went through" lie #2
"Here's the ticket"
person shows up to court to fight the ticket by claiming their innocence, lie #3
Again, no excusing Uber's behavior, just pointing to a double standard. We fully expect human drivers to run red lights, and we fully expect them to lie about it. There's no excuse for Uber's response and no excuse for their software running a red light, but there's similarly no excuse for humans doing it. Yet humans do it all the time and no one really cares.
Like if we're going to report headline news every time a Tesla catches on fire, we should have breaking news stop-the-presses coverage every time a gasoline or diesel powered car catches on fire, too. But we don't because it's much more frequent, to the point where we almost expect it.
Uber's lies affect society. This hypothetical drivers lie only affects his wallet.
Red lights aren't there to issue tickets. They're there to direct traffic flow and ensure safety of vehicles/pedestrians going in another direction. The person is endangering others just the same as Uber. I'm sure just about everybody has run a red light, but lying about it afterwards is the problem - that's when you say "the law doesn't apply to me" and you become reckless. Uber just does it at a much larger scale.
>Uber just does it at a much larger scale.
I disagree. This is a corporation speaking with one voice to attempt to continue to run cars which have just demonstrated an inability to detect a crucial traffic signal. Think of it this way, in one example I run a red light and lie about it. In the other I make arguments in the public sphere to allow the legally blind to drive because it will benefit me financially. That's not scale, that's fundamentally different.
I disagree. This is a corporation speaking with one voice to attempt to continue to run cars which have just demonstrated an inability to detect a crucial traffic signal. Think of it this way, in one example I run a red light and lie about it. In the other I make arguments in the public sphere to allow the legally blind to drive because it will benefit me financially. That's not scale, that's fundamentally different.
You're assuming that because it missed the traffic light once it will do so every time. The real world is a dynamic environment, something odd may have happened that it just missed the light that one instance. I am not condoning Uber and I suspect they have a long way to go with their self-driving technology, but you're making bold conclusions on almost no data.
>you're making bold conclusions on almost no data.
Then Uber should disillusion me, not lie and cover up. Was it a flash of light off a reflection, a leaf that blew across the light, an odd angle? Then Uber should tell us that. More importantly though is the question of whether Uber even knows why it failed. What if they don't even understand why the car ran the light?
EDIT:
>You're assuming that because it missed the traffic light once it will do so every time.
Where did I assume that?
Then Uber should disillusion me, not lie and cover up. Was it a flash of light off a reflection, a leaf that blew across the light, an odd angle? Then Uber should tell us that. More importantly though is the question of whether Uber even knows why it failed. What if they don't even understand why the car ran the light?
EDIT:
>You're assuming that because it missed the traffic light once it will do so every time.
Where did I assume that?
You clearly made the comparison between Uber's technology and the legally blind. Looking at your other comments, it seems you want to argue more than you want to have a constructive conversation. I'm exiting this thread.
Sure and I suppose we've gotten a bit off topic. I guess my comment should have prepended this (to stay constructive):
>You're assuming that because it missed the traffic light once it will do so every time. The real world is a dynamic environment, something odd may have happened that it just missed the light that one instance.
Whether Uber misses this specific light over and over again or whether it fails in one off incidents across a spectrum of events when "something odd" happens shouldn't change our judgment of the car or company.
>You're assuming that because it missed the traffic light once it will do so every time. The real world is a dynamic environment, something odd may have happened that it just missed the light that one instance.
Whether Uber misses this specific light over and over again or whether it fails in one off incidents across a spectrum of events when "something odd" happens shouldn't change our judgment of the car or company.
Nobody said Uber shouldn't do that. I was pointing out that Uber's self-driving technology isn't fundamentally different from a collection of bad drivers (at least within the scope of our comments). You just seem to want to hate on Uber. There are lots of reasons to hate Uber, but please do so with logical consistency.
>There are lots of reasons to hate Uber, but please do so with logical consistency.
Where have I not been consistent?
Where have I not been consistent?
I would say every red light runner affects society. The main reason people support self-driving cars is because of how common traffic deaths are. Because of how bad humans are at driving. It's a lot easier to do a software update on a poorly-behaving self-driving car than it is to re-educate poorly-behaving human drivers.
The real question is not "do self-driving cars commit traffic violations?" but rather "do self-driving cars commit traffic violations at a lower rate than humans?". That's what matters. Not that they're perfect, but that they're better in a measurable way.
The real question is not "do self-driving cars commit traffic violations?" but rather "do self-driving cars commit traffic violations at a lower rate than humans?". That's what matters. Not that they're perfect, but that they're better in a measurable way.
>I would say every red light runner affects society.
But we're not talking about the act of running a red light, we're talking about the act of lying about it.
>It's a lot easier to do a software update on a poorly-behaving self-driving car than it is to re-educate poorly-behaving human drivers.
What makes you think this?
>"do self-driving cars commit traffic violations at a lower rate than humans?".
Indeed. So the companies behind self-driving cars should prove it.
But we're not talking about the act of running a red light, we're talking about the act of lying about it.
>It's a lot easier to do a software update on a poorly-behaving self-driving car than it is to re-educate poorly-behaving human drivers.
What makes you think this?
>"do self-driving cars commit traffic violations at a lower rate than humans?".
Indeed. So the companies behind self-driving cars should prove it.
I think people fear the loss of control that a self driving car poses. If I run a red light and get into an accident I have only myself to blame. If my car does that on its own its completely out of my control and that is pretty terrifying, especially to less tech savvy people. Unfortunately that is how a lot of people look at the issue.
Yeah, while not true on aggregate, on any specific instance a human driver can make the conscious decision to pay extra attention and drive more safely.
Plus, even if Uber's car recognized the traffic light as green, the fact that the cars before it on the other lanes stopped should be a clear enough signal to not just speed through.
Plus, even if Uber's car recognized the traffic light as green, the fact that the cars before it on the other lanes stopped should be a clear enough signal to not just speed through.
Usually when a human runs a red light, they are aware that it's red. Typically the light is just turning red, and they think they can still make it.
For Uber, their car was probably not aware that the light was red, which is more dangerous.
For Uber, their car was probably not aware that the light was red, which is more dangerous.
For ~100 years nobody has been able to make a light red enough for people to consistently stop and wait to proceed.
Uber and all the other companies will permanently solve that problem the one time they figure out how to reliably identify a red light.
Uber and all the other companies will permanently solve that problem the one time they figure out how to reliably identify a red light.
People often run red lights because they aren't paying attention too. It still doesn't make headlines on CNN.
A person running a red light is driving just one car at a time. A self-driving car's software is (potentially) driving many cars.
I do not think "a self-driving car runs a red light" is analogous to "a person runs a red light". A closer analogy is to "a distinct class of people who run red lights".
I do agree that the media response is overblown, however I do not think it is without some merit.
I do not think "a self-driving car runs a red light" is analogous to "a person runs a red light". A closer analogy is to "a distinct class of people who run red lights".
I do agree that the media response is overblown, however I do not think it is without some merit.
"A person" discounts the millions of other persons individually doing it around the world - orders of magnitude more than driverless cars could possibly achieve this decade. Their combined effort, while not just running red lights, kills an estimated 1.25 million people a year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...
Humans who run red lights don't have PR firms proclaiming they're disrupting driving and changing the world. That stance sets you up for bad press when your technology fails.
I thought what had people upset was that Uber wasn't honest about what happened, not just that the car ran a red.
Even the most dug-in libertarian can't really argue against these kinds of regulations; automobiles affect everyone within their vicinity. Ideally, all automobile manufacturers should be politely told to shut the fuck up and deal with it, but the realist in me thinks Chao's pockets will be lined with their money quite soon.
You'd be surprised. The problem with regulations is that they have done their job so well that a subset of people now believe they are not necessary and that the market will "take care of itself". See also: vaccines.
People can change their tune. Greenspan was chairman of the Fed for 20 years arguing for free market the whole time. It was his life's philosophy. Then he testified to Congress after the housing meltdown '08 and said he was wrong. The banks can't be trusted to regulate themselves via the market, and regulation is necessary.
We will face a recession again. Trump will repeal Dodd Frank, banks will start making riskier loans and obscuring them in hidden investment products, and one day someone big enough will pull out, causing the whole house of cards to collapse. And, Republicans and Democrats will do another TARP because the alternative is World Depression II. That is, unless Trump seizes enough power to prevent TARP II.
We will face a recession again. Trump will repeal Dodd Frank, banks will start making riskier loans and obscuring them in hidden investment products, and one day someone big enough will pull out, causing the whole house of cards to collapse. And, Republicans and Democrats will do another TARP because the alternative is World Depression II. That is, unless Trump seizes enough power to prevent TARP II.
People can change their tune, but that's not what is happening in today's political climate. It's been less than ten years since the last financial crisis, and no one has forgotten that it was loose regulations that caused it. What we have happening today is something much more sinister - crises and bailouts are becoming part of the system itself. Socialized bailouts, privatized profits.
Yeah. I suspect it's not new. We've gone back and forth between being red and blue, through recessions and wars. We need to remain vigilant, and also remember that history does have a way of repeating itself. Let's just hope this isn't a big bang type event, and more of a wake up call for everyone.
> Even the most dug-in libertarian can't really argue against these kinds of regulations
Oh, I beg to differ. From a hard-core libertarian perspective, the state has no right to exist, let alone impose arbitrary regulations on business owners. People should be free to trade at will and guarantees on safety should be handled through a contract between the people who are trading. To impose regulations on trade would be an act of aggression.
During vehicle operation, everyone using the road would need to agree on an acceptable level of risk, probably managed by the road owner, not a state. Even if the owner of a particular road refuses to do business with you, you would still be able to buy whatever vehicles you like and operate them on your own property.
Oh, I beg to differ. From a hard-core libertarian perspective, the state has no right to exist, let alone impose arbitrary regulations on business owners. People should be free to trade at will and guarantees on safety should be handled through a contract between the people who are trading. To impose regulations on trade would be an act of aggression.
During vehicle operation, everyone using the road would need to agree on an acceptable level of risk, probably managed by the road owner, not a state. Even if the owner of a particular road refuses to do business with you, you would still be able to buy whatever vehicles you like and operate them on your own property.
> From a hard-core libertarian perspective, the state has no right to exist
That's a completely bogus argument- you're conflating anarchism with libertarianism in order to make libertarians look bad.
That's a completely bogus argument- you're conflating anarchism with libertarianism in order to make libertarians look bad.
That's not anarchism. Self driving cars are already safer than humans.
If something is already safer than humans, then it should be deployed in mass, NOW. Screw the laws. Or get rid of them.
A million people die every year due to cars. The market can fix this if government gets out of the way.
If something is already safer than humans, then it should be deployed in mass, NOW. Screw the laws. Or get rid of them.
A million people die every year due to cars. The market can fix this if government gets out of the way.
There's certainly a division between libertarian minarchists and libertarian anarchists, but I'm talking about the most "hard-core" application of the NAP.
Historically, to the degree that the state recedes from markets is to the same degree that markets get more volatile, smaller and less profitable.
That might be true, though I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that. But my point wasn't that regulation is inefficient - it's that libertarians can be quite a bit more extreme than the OP thinks.
>>That might be true, though I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that.
Libertarian paradises aren't always theoretical. See early bitcoin, and the commonly cited Somalia. On the opposite end, known authoritarian-tightass state China currently has the most efficient capitalist economy the planet has yet seen.
Libertarian paradises aren't always theoretical. See early bitcoin, and the commonly cited Somalia. On the opposite end, known authoritarian-tightass state China currently has the most efficient capitalist economy the planet has yet seen.
Bitcoin as an economy is essentially a hoax.
While I can't disagree with that, I still think it's relevant to point out that as bitcoin's controlling powers have become increasingly regulated, so has bitcoin's stability.
I think you have cause and effect reversed. The regulation came in as the network experienced serious problems with the reliability of transactions. Which tracks with history of money and market economies.
Wrong. Self driving cars are already safer than humans. We need to put them on the road, in mass, NOW.
Every year we wait is another million people dead, due to terrible human drivers.
Every year we wait is another million people dead, due to terrible human drivers.
That's a great idea if the tech were ready.
Introduced prematurely, it could set the tech back due to public outcry. A few more autopilot deaths in the US in this political climate could really hurt the industry. Chao is looking for an excuse to pull permits.
Introduced prematurely, it could set the tech back due to public outcry. A few more autopilot deaths in the US in this political climate could really hurt the industry. Chao is looking for an excuse to pull permits.
Maybe in big government California there would be outcry.
But not in Arizona, or any other red state.
Get the federal government out of regulating it, and let the states decide.
Then, when red states save thousands of lives, the blue states will follow.
But not in Arizona, or any other red state.
Get the federal government out of regulating it, and let the states decide.
Then, when red states save thousands of lives, the blue states will follow.
> Then, when red states save thousands of lives, the blue states will follow.
Haha or vice versa! Depends who proceeds in the right way.
I don't believe there's definitively an answer as to whether Tesla (arguably red and anti-regulation, moving forward without much caution) or Google (blue, more cautious) will find more success. I personally think Google will, but even better than that, it's great that we have such a system that permits that level of competition.
Haha or vice versa! Depends who proceeds in the right way.
I don't believe there's definitively an answer as to whether Tesla (arguably red and anti-regulation, moving forward without much caution) or Google (blue, more cautious) will find more success. I personally think Google will, but even better than that, it's great that we have such a system that permits that level of competition.
"Chao said she was "very concerned" about the potential impact of automated vehicles on employment. There are 3.5 million U.S. truck drivers alone and millions of others employed in driving-related occupations."
that is really the hardest point, when you are trying to reduce unemployment like Trump is.
that is really the hardest point, when you are trying to reduce unemployment like Trump is.
[deleted]
Exactly. AI-driven cars almost certainly are/will be safer than human-driven cars. We don't need them right now. Don't cut corners on safety.
> This is a really difficult situation, in that lowering regulatory overhead would mean getting automated solutions to the public faster,
Never lower regulations when life are on the line.
There is a reason planes and cars don't crash every day, and it's because of these annoying regulations that force tests and QA. You'll never see a summer intern just come in and commits anything he wants and breaks everything. This shit doesn't happen in this line of business.
Regulations is good. You don't want devs being involved in your car with zero regulations to back them.
Never lower regulations when life are on the line.
There is a reason planes and cars don't crash every day, and it's because of these annoying regulations that force tests and QA. You'll never see a summer intern just come in and commits anything he wants and breaks everything. This shit doesn't happen in this line of business.
Regulations is good. You don't want devs being involved in your car with zero regulations to back them.
> urged companies to explain the benefits of automated vehicles to a skeptical public.
As a "tech guy" myself I have trouble fathoming a position of skepticism around the benefits of self-driving vehicles.
I know it is generally a good idea to be skeptical even as a "devil's advocate" but to my mind, there are so many upsides that it is hard to connect with me?
As a "tech guy" myself I have trouble fathoming a position of skepticism around the benefits of self-driving vehicles.
I know it is generally a good idea to be skeptical even as a "devil's advocate" but to my mind, there are so many upsides that it is hard to connect with me?
The skepticism enters when we question whether they actually be able to deliver. If companies are actually far less able to build a self-driving car than the image they like to project then the dangers enter.
Also:
Self-driving cars won't start out safer than humans.
Cars which can self drive in some situations but not others will be abused by lazy humans.
Self-driving cars will drive differently than people and thus kill people in accidents which would not have occurred had there been a human driver.
There is no such thing as "mostly autonomous." Humans will not be able to take over and drive at their normal skill level within short time frames.
There has to yet, been no apples to apples comparison of human drivers and autonomous vehicles. Until we get that, why should we let companies use our public roads as their testbed? When Tesla or any other company can prove to me that their cars are safer than human-driven vehicles, I won't oppose them on my roads.
Also:
Self-driving cars won't start out safer than humans.
Cars which can self drive in some situations but not others will be abused by lazy humans.
Self-driving cars will drive differently than people and thus kill people in accidents which would not have occurred had there been a human driver.
There is no such thing as "mostly autonomous." Humans will not be able to take over and drive at their normal skill level within short time frames.
There has to yet, been no apples to apples comparison of human drivers and autonomous vehicles. Until we get that, why should we let companies use our public roads as their testbed? When Tesla or any other company can prove to me that their cars are safer than human-driven vehicles, I won't oppose them on my roads.
> Self-driving cars won't start out safer than humans.
All data that I've seen so far supports the conclusion that self-driving cars are already much, much safer than humans.
http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/googles-self-driving-car-is- ridiculously-safe
> When Tesla or any other company can prove to me that their cars are safer than human-driven vehicles, I won't oppose them on my roads.
How can they be expected to prove their safety record to you without driving hundreds of millions of miles on public roads? They're already provably safer than humans in artificial "test course" scenarios.
All data that I've seen so far supports the conclusion that self-driving cars are already much, much safer than humans.
http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/googles-self-driving-car-is- ridiculously-safe
> When Tesla or any other company can prove to me that their cars are safer than human-driven vehicles, I won't oppose them on my roads.
How can they be expected to prove their safety record to you without driving hundreds of millions of miles on public roads? They're already provably safer than humans in artificial "test course" scenarios.
Average deaths in US is 1 per 100 million miles, in all vehicles, all weather, and all types of roads.
Tesla is already less-safe when looking at fatalities involving autopilot. There have been one (FL), probably two deaths (China). That was when they only had around 150 million miles driving mostly in good weather and on divided roads with clear markings.
The 1 in 100 million average in the US includes motorcycles and all types of cars, new and old. Tesla is a new luxury sedan driving on limited roads in limited scenarios.
Tesla is already less-safe when looking at fatalities involving autopilot. There have been one (FL), probably two deaths (China). That was when they only had around 150 million miles driving mostly in good weather and on divided roads with clear markings.
The 1 in 100 million average in the US includes motorcycles and all types of cars, new and old. Tesla is a new luxury sedan driving on limited roads in limited scenarios.
The problem is there is no apples to apples comparison. Self-driving cars currently only handle the most basic, easy conditions so they have great safety statistics. Unfortunately, there is no accident data for humans which is confined to this type of driving. In fact, humans are probably quite good at driving on flat, straight roads with clearly demarcated road lines and the such. Most human accidents will almost certainly take place in conditions in which even Elon Musk would not suggest you test your Tesla's autonomous features.
>How can they be expected to prove their safety record to you without driving hundreds of millions of miles on public roads? They're already provably safer than humans in artificial "test course" scenarios.
If they are so ingenious as to build a self-driving car, you are telling me they can't think of a way to actually do an apples to apples test? Or is it that they don't want to prove their cars are safer? Or is it that they don't want to pay to prove their cars are safer?
>How can they be expected to prove their safety record to you without driving hundreds of millions of miles on public roads? They're already provably safer than humans in artificial "test course" scenarios.
If they are so ingenious as to build a self-driving car, you are telling me they can't think of a way to actually do an apples to apples test? Or is it that they don't want to prove their cars are safer? Or is it that they don't want to pay to prove their cars are safer?
Here's a bitterly cynical contrarian view: hope you really really really like getting bombarded with ads even more now that you don't have to pay attention to the road! Marketing opportunities abound! Or, hope you don't mind shelling out for the "ad free experience" every trip.
Here's a less bitter contrarian view:
Self-driving vehicles will be bad for American city development and reinforce existing patterns of inefficiency, waste, and self-segregation.
The reasons I expect this to happen: * People will likely put up with longer commutes if they don't have to pay attention the whole time. * The amount of cars on the road for a given level of congestion will probably increase due to more efficient cross-vehicle coordination and faster reaction times. * I expect most consumers will still prefer to own rather than perpetually rent their vehicle (the average age of cars on the road right now is 11.5 years - that's quite a few years of not making payments compared to being a perpetual Uber-rider), especially given the convenience in family situations (keeping stuff in the car all the time to entertain the kids, keeping the back seats covered to protect from the dog fur and claws, etc).
So those plausible resulting conditions seem likely to lead to less centralized cities, reinforcing a future of inefficiently using a bunch of energy to move small numbers of people individually in cars vs in a denser, older-style urban rail system.
Here's a less bitter contrarian view:
Self-driving vehicles will be bad for American city development and reinforce existing patterns of inefficiency, waste, and self-segregation.
The reasons I expect this to happen: * People will likely put up with longer commutes if they don't have to pay attention the whole time. * The amount of cars on the road for a given level of congestion will probably increase due to more efficient cross-vehicle coordination and faster reaction times. * I expect most consumers will still prefer to own rather than perpetually rent their vehicle (the average age of cars on the road right now is 11.5 years - that's quite a few years of not making payments compared to being a perpetual Uber-rider), especially given the convenience in family situations (keeping stuff in the car all the time to entertain the kids, keeping the back seats covered to protect from the dog fur and claws, etc).
So those plausible resulting conditions seem likely to lead to less centralized cities, reinforcing a future of inefficiently using a bunch of energy to move small numbers of people individually in cars vs in a denser, older-style urban rail system.
"Self-driving vehicles will be bad for American city development"
Cities don't have rights. Why are you equating "good for cities" with absolute good?
"and reinforce existing patterns of inefficiency, waste, and self-segregation."
What you call "inefficiency, waste, and self-segregation" other people call "living the lifestyle they want, having a nice yard, and being able to raise their kids away from the dirt, crime, and horrible schools found in the cities".
Efficiency is not the end goal of human life.
If we were really after maximum efficiency, we could have everyone sleep in bunks (maybe even hot-bunk it with three shifts) and eat all their meals in communal chow halls.
But we don't. Why is that, do you suppose?
Cities don't have rights. Why are you equating "good for cities" with absolute good?
"and reinforce existing patterns of inefficiency, waste, and self-segregation."
What you call "inefficiency, waste, and self-segregation" other people call "living the lifestyle they want, having a nice yard, and being able to raise their kids away from the dirt, crime, and horrible schools found in the cities".
Efficiency is not the end goal of human life.
If we were really after maximum efficiency, we could have everyone sleep in bunks (maybe even hot-bunk it with three shifts) and eat all their meals in communal chow halls.
But we don't. Why is that, do you suppose?
The city problem is easy to solve. Build more houses and apartments.
Cars gave nothing to do with it. The problem is that 10s of millions of people would live in the city if they could, but the government does let them, by putting so many limits on house building.
Cars gave nothing to do with it. The problem is that 10s of millions of people would live in the city if they could, but the government does let them, by putting so many limits on house building.
I generally agree with your position. But it would be made stronger if you included examples of how it would provide upsides. For example, fewer deaths due to accidents.
Next would be how to measure the impact into real numbers like GDP.
Take for example at least one prominent person who likely would still alive today if all cars were self driving https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash_Jr.
Next would be how to measure the impact into real numbers like GDP.
Driving robots among us who can "decide" to kill has the maximum PR potential for fear and loathing.
It is a bit like terrorism, it is a lot unsafer to step in a wet shower in the morning or well, drive to work, than say getting killed by a terrorist yet look at the wars, waste, money, time spent talking about it.
It is a bit like terrorism, it is a lot unsafer to step in a wet shower in the morning or well, drive to work, than say getting killed by a terrorist yet look at the wars, waste, money, time spent talking about it.
They don't decide to kill anyone.
The trolley problem would never happen in real life.
In all situations, the safe thing to do in an emergency is to slam on the breaks, and do avoidance, maybe. As well as don't get into these emergency situations in the first place.
The trolley problem would never happen in real life.
In all situations, the safe thing to do in an emergency is to slam on the breaks, and do avoidance, maybe. As well as don't get into these emergency situations in the first place.
> In all situations, the safe thing to do in an emergency is to slam on the breaks, and do avoidance, maybe. As well as don't get into these emergency situations in the first place.
Traveling at 50mph on an interstate in dense, almost no-visibility fog. Slamming on the breaks is going to create a 50-car pileup with at least two or three fatalities. You might say it's not safe to be driving that fast in those conditions, and you're probably right, but everyone else is, and driving significantly below the going rate is equally dangerous.
Traveling at 50mph on an interstate in dense, almost no-visibility fog. Slamming on the breaks is going to create a 50-car pileup with at least two or three fatalities. You might say it's not safe to be driving that fast in those conditions, and you're probably right, but everyone else is, and driving significantly below the going rate is equally dangerous.
I'm a skeptic. Even if self-driving vehicles work perfectly, most people desperately want to drive. For many, driving is the only time during the day where they are alone and are in charge.
There is a huge psychological element to why cars are so popular.
[Personally I hate cars altogether and only use public transport.]
There is a huge psychological element to why cars are so popular.
[Personally I hate cars altogether and only use public transport.]
> I have trouble fathoming a position of skepticism around the benefits of self-driving vehicles.
I don't have trouble being skeptical, in fact. I don't believe it will ever work for city streets.
Here's why:
The computer would have to be 99.99999% reliable to do that, and we don't have computers that reliable.
The numbers:
The accident rate is around 74 per 100 million miles (and fatalities is 1.13).
It's unclear exactly how to turn that into a percentage, but no matter how you do it it's quite high.
Say an accident takes 5 minutes, and people drive 30 miles/hour. Then that works out to 99.999% for humans. If you use the numbers for fatalities then it's 99.99999%.
I.e. 99.99999% of the time, as whole across all [US] humans, people drive in a way that does not cause a fatality.
That's the bar computers have to cross in order to save any lives at all.
I don't have trouble being skeptical, in fact. I don't believe it will ever work for city streets.
Here's why:
The computer would have to be 99.99999% reliable to do that, and we don't have computers that reliable.
The numbers:
The accident rate is around 74 per 100 million miles (and fatalities is 1.13).
It's unclear exactly how to turn that into a percentage, but no matter how you do it it's quite high.
Say an accident takes 5 minutes, and people drive 30 miles/hour. Then that works out to 99.999% for humans. If you use the numbers for fatalities then it's 99.99999%.
I.e. 99.99999% of the time, as whole across all [US] humans, people drive in a way that does not cause a fatality.
That's the bar computers have to cross in order to save any lives at all.
Why are so many people blind to the potential pitfalls of self-driving cars?
Considering traditional automakers previous behavior when dealing with defects, this huge rush to get cars connected so that they can hoover up as much data on you and your driving as possible, their general culture of secrecy, a reticence to launch bug bounties and the general closed source nature of their code, you are not at all worried about terrorists or, much more likely, mischief makers hacking your car (or a fleet of the same model with the same vulnerability) for the lulz?
I've said this before, but I'm definitely not getting Mk. 1 of a self-driving car and most likely will never get one unless they open source the code.
Considering traditional automakers previous behavior when dealing with defects, this huge rush to get cars connected so that they can hoover up as much data on you and your driving as possible, their general culture of secrecy, a reticence to launch bug bounties and the general closed source nature of their code, you are not at all worried about terrorists or, much more likely, mischief makers hacking your car (or a fleet of the same model with the same vulnerability) for the lulz?
I've said this before, but I'm definitely not getting Mk. 1 of a self-driving car and most likely will never get one unless they open source the code.
Well the first weekend of Uber's cars in San Francisco and they had to pull the project because it ran a red light very close to a pedestrian. It only takes a couple videos like that for people to be swayed against statistical information.
"Currently very rich people have a lot invested in idustries that will be threatened by this model. Why should we let you exist?"
See also: support for coal industry.
See also: support for coal industry.
[deleted]
Well 12million jobs in the transportation sector is a pretty good reason to be sceptic if cars get automated.
Acknowledging that it's unfortunate to be shifted out of a job is different from being skeptical.
Well it's not just about that though.
With that many in the sector its going to have huge economic consequences for the country.
With that many in the sector its going to have huge economic consequences for the country.
(I had a long reply on this, but Firefox 51 crashed and lost it. Rewriting).
California DMV's regulations for testing are straightforward. 1) Get $5M in insurance, 2) Report all crashes immediately, and disconnects annually, and 3) only trained drivers associated with the manufacturer can drive. That's what Google wanted, and there are about 20 manufacturers with CA autonomous vehicle testing licenses. Their reports are one of the few objective data sources we have on self-driving cars. (Uber whined about having to report their failures, refused to register, and moved testing out of CA.)
California's deployment regulations are still in flux, although there's a draft version. So far, nobody has applied to deploy production self-driving vehicles in California.
NHTSA started with definitions of levels of autonomy. Informally:
- Level 0 - manual driving
- Level 1 - auto brake or lane keeping, but not both.
- Level 2 - auto speed/brake control and lane keeping (Tesla, BMW, Mercedes, etc.) Driver may have to take over control at any time.
- Level 3 - fully automatic driving on some roads. Driver may have to take control, but not instantly. (Google/Waymo, Volvo)
- Level 4 - fully automatic driving on all roads.
- Level 5 - no driver needed.
NHTSA proposes that at level 3 and above, the manufacturer is responsible for all accidents. Volvo is on board with this, and the US Big Three automakers don't object. NHTSA sees a bright line between levels 2 and 3, and says that at level 2, manufacturers should enforce hands-on-wheel. That's what got Tesla into trouble - weak hands-on-wheel enforcement combined with PR that convinced some drivers that "autopilot" was better than it is.
Urmson, when at Google, said that their testing taught them that humans cannot take over fast enough to deal with automation failures. This echoes what the aviation community has discovered over the years - when someone who isn't actively flying has to take over control, it takes seconds or tens of seconds before they have full situational awareness.
This means the incremental approach of adding more features to assist the driver won't work. Somebody has to be in charge, either the human or the computer. Ambiguity over who is driving leads to accidents. (For an aviation view of this, see "Children of the Magenta", where a chief pilot is talking to his pilots about cockpit aviation dependency.[1])
Congressional hearing last week on self-driving cars.[2]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN41LvuSz10 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJsRF7NcjpM
California DMV's regulations for testing are straightforward. 1) Get $5M in insurance, 2) Report all crashes immediately, and disconnects annually, and 3) only trained drivers associated with the manufacturer can drive. That's what Google wanted, and there are about 20 manufacturers with CA autonomous vehicle testing licenses. Their reports are one of the few objective data sources we have on self-driving cars. (Uber whined about having to report their failures, refused to register, and moved testing out of CA.)
California's deployment regulations are still in flux, although there's a draft version. So far, nobody has applied to deploy production self-driving vehicles in California.
NHTSA started with definitions of levels of autonomy. Informally:
- Level 0 - manual driving
- Level 1 - auto brake or lane keeping, but not both.
- Level 2 - auto speed/brake control and lane keeping (Tesla, BMW, Mercedes, etc.) Driver may have to take over control at any time.
- Level 3 - fully automatic driving on some roads. Driver may have to take control, but not instantly. (Google/Waymo, Volvo)
- Level 4 - fully automatic driving on all roads.
- Level 5 - no driver needed.
NHTSA proposes that at level 3 and above, the manufacturer is responsible for all accidents. Volvo is on board with this, and the US Big Three automakers don't object. NHTSA sees a bright line between levels 2 and 3, and says that at level 2, manufacturers should enforce hands-on-wheel. That's what got Tesla into trouble - weak hands-on-wheel enforcement combined with PR that convinced some drivers that "autopilot" was better than it is.
Urmson, when at Google, said that their testing taught them that humans cannot take over fast enough to deal with automation failures. This echoes what the aviation community has discovered over the years - when someone who isn't actively flying has to take over control, it takes seconds or tens of seconds before they have full situational awareness.
This means the incremental approach of adding more features to assist the driver won't work. Somebody has to be in charge, either the human or the computer. Ambiguity over who is driving leads to accidents. (For an aviation view of this, see "Children of the Magenta", where a chief pilot is talking to his pilots about cockpit aviation dependency.[1])
Congressional hearing last week on self-driving cars.[2]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN41LvuSz10 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJsRF7NcjpM
> Urmson, when at Google, said that their testing taught them that humans cannot take over fast enough to deal with automation failures. This echoes what the aviation community has discovered over the years - when someone who isn't actively flying has to take over control, it takes seconds or tens of seconds before they have full situational awareness.
I'm disappointed that this didn't become the prevailing wisdom for self-driving cars. With the current state of affairs, it seems there's a real risk of a few accidents causing this administration to pull the plug on self-driving altogether until we get a progressive administration again.
Perhaps Urmson ought to have published this research so that others could use their methods and reproduce the results. It seems to me that user-study was the most important part of their research.
I'm disappointed that this didn't become the prevailing wisdom for self-driving cars. With the current state of affairs, it seems there's a real risk of a few accidents causing this administration to pull the plug on self-driving altogether until we get a progressive administration again.
Perhaps Urmson ought to have published this research so that others could use their methods and reproduce the results. It seems to me that user-study was the most important part of their research.
It's in his SXSW talk.[1] It's the Google/Waymo and Volvo position, those being the two companies closest to a product.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj-rK8V-rik
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj-rK8V-rik
2016 seems a bit late. Also, hindsight is 20/20 and I do nothing for self driving cars
Rewrite! Your expertise is valued here =). Rewrites always come out better anyway.
Having read through the previous guidelines, I am not surprised at all at the actions taken. However, the changes taken will likely not change the situation much, as the policy had already been very deferential towards state regulation and self-regulation and really were mostly just guidelines.
This is relevant to a lot of the comments, so I'll just make it as a top-level comment. First, two videos of the latest version of the Tesla Autopilot firmware, rolled out to Tesla vehicle owners this week. Each shows the car repeatedly trying to kill its driver:
1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYav3_7miIc
2: https://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?a=zYHrJvXcz6M&u=%2F...
Tesla broke ties with the previous supplier of its driver assist hardware and software last year after serious disagreements over the safety of Tesla's present and future Autopilot systems and how it was being marketed to consumers.
It's now been just a few months, and Tesla's rolled out their own Autopilot software to customers of cars built since the breakup with Mobileye.
That software doesn't have the years of testing the old software did. This one, as you can see in the videos I linked from the latest firmware, does things like drive your car off clearly marked roads inexplicably without warning. It is not acting safer than human drivers would in these situations.
I'm not happy about sharing the roads with cars that may drive themselves into me with no warning that there's anything wrong with what should be a simple lane keeping system. Especially when that system doesn't force the driver to keep their hands on the wheel, when obviously they need to be there with the software in this state.
I want to eventually benefit from the kind of self-driving cars Google is building (Waymo is down to a human temporarily taking the wheel once per 5000 miles of driving on public roads), without the harm of what startups like Tesla can do by putting essentially untested systems on production cars I share the road with.
There must be a regulatory middle ground?
1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYav3_7miIc
2: https://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?a=zYHrJvXcz6M&u=%2F...
Tesla broke ties with the previous supplier of its driver assist hardware and software last year after serious disagreements over the safety of Tesla's present and future Autopilot systems and how it was being marketed to consumers.
It's now been just a few months, and Tesla's rolled out their own Autopilot software to customers of cars built since the breakup with Mobileye.
That software doesn't have the years of testing the old software did. This one, as you can see in the videos I linked from the latest firmware, does things like drive your car off clearly marked roads inexplicably without warning. It is not acting safer than human drivers would in these situations.
I'm not happy about sharing the roads with cars that may drive themselves into me with no warning that there's anything wrong with what should be a simple lane keeping system. Especially when that system doesn't force the driver to keep their hands on the wheel, when obviously they need to be there with the software in this state.
I want to eventually benefit from the kind of self-driving cars Google is building (Waymo is down to a human temporarily taking the wheel once per 5000 miles of driving on public roads), without the harm of what startups like Tesla can do by putting essentially untested systems on production cars I share the road with.
There must be a regulatory middle ground?
> There must be a regulatory middle ground?
I think there is, I just wouldn't hold my breath for Congress to act on it. California is leading the way on this. Elect the right people there and hopefully that trickles up and across to other states.
I think there is, I just wouldn't hold my breath for Congress to act on it. California is leading the way on this. Elect the right people there and hopefully that trickles up and across to other states.
My fear here is that this is mostly an excuse for established car companies to get Trump to target Tesla. Trump has no particular reason to like electric cars, and established car companies have every reason to fear Tesla. I further suspect that Trump sees being bribed as simply a good business proposition...
What's the difference? The NHTSA guidelines were only suggestions, not laws. They were a heads-up to manufacturers in what the public may demand from companies in the future.
Plus, the states are the ones regulating on this. California is leading the way in independent testing, and they and a handful of others are the only ones who've begun requiring reporting about accidents involving driver-assist and autonomous vehicles.
Am I dumb for saying this administration is unlikely to make federal laws surrounding this technology? Their whole argument is to shrink national government and empower the states to do as they please. Every time they make a national law they shoot themselves in the foot.
Plus, the states are the ones regulating on this. California is leading the way in independent testing, and they and a handful of others are the only ones who've begun requiring reporting about accidents involving driver-assist and autonomous vehicles.
Am I dumb for saying this administration is unlikely to make federal laws surrounding this technology? Their whole argument is to shrink national government and empower the states to do as they please. Every time they make a national law they shoot themselves in the foot.
> She said self-driving cars could dramatically improve safety.
Agree, I believe that's a fair assessment and I am glad they are recognizing it.
Agree, I believe that's a fair assessment and I am glad they are recognizing it.
Always when some interest group senses that a thread does not go their way, they use flagging (of the submission) to censor the unwanted opinions.
Flagging is totally sick on HN.
Flagging is totally sick on HN.
A lot of people on HN are exhausted by a lot of the political submissions. So many of them descend into inflammatory, nonconstructive point scoring, which is the opposite of HN's intent for civil, substantive discussion. People are often flagging regardless of their own political leanings: they don't want HN to have so many political flamewars.
My immediate reaction to this web page was EEEEEK!!! SPIDERS!!!!
astrodust(1)