21–30 of 498 posts
Classic government. Self-driving technology should benchmarked against how good people are at driving (and how often they kill and injure people), as opposed to being proven intrinsically safe like a car part.
So why "quit" when the feds ask you to deal with regulations that involve passenger safety. Its not like he had to spend $20M on clinical trials.
a little more detail from techcrunch: https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/28/comma-ai-cancels-the-comma... It seems that Hotz said, “dealing with regulators and lawyers… isn’t worth it.” Which seems very unfortunate/shortsighted due to how useful this tech could be. Why not hire someone to deal with them for you?
That may be just a fig-leaf to plaster over 'we couldn't do it'. It's one thing to release software, it's quite another thing to release this software and have it tested, audited and certified safe and that's definitely part of the process of delivering software that is critical to the well being of the users and the other people you're sharing the road with. And that second part is part-and-parcel of wanting to oper…
I don't understand how a startup like Cruise can get past this regulatory hurlde in the US but Hotz can't.
Something seems fishy to me. Cruise which GM bought for $1B a few months back was working on similar tech. Having only raised $3M he could have EASILY sold his tech/team to Chrysler or Ford or Hyundai, or any other car company for $100M and made his investors super happy and himself very rich. So why "quit" when the feds ask you to deal with regulations that involve passenger safety. Its not like he had to spend $20M…
He's currently throwing a temper tantrum on Twitter, and all because the NHTSA wanted to ask him a few questions about the product (you can see it here: https://www.scribd.com/document/329218929/2016-10-27-Special... ). Like, how dare the government try to have basic standards for multi-ton hunks of metal hurtling down the highway without human input. I've been trying to convince people lately that Silicon Valley isn…
1. Describe in detail how the comma one is installed in a vehicle and provide a copy of installation instructions for the comma one.
2. Describe in detail the advanced driver assistance features of the comma one, including how those features differ from the existing features of the vehicles in which the comma one is intended to be installed.
3. Describe in detail how a vehicle driver uses the comma one and provide a copy of user instructions for the comma one.
4. Provide a detailed description of the conditions under which you believe a vehicle equipped with comma one may operate safely. This description must include
a. The types of roadways on which a vehicle equipped with comma one may operate safely;
b. The geographic area in which a vehicle equipped with comma one may operate safely;
c. The speed range in which a vehicle equipped with comma one may operate safely;
d. The traffic conditions in which a vehicle equipped with comma one may operate safely;
e. The environmental conditions in which a vehicle equipped with comma one may operate safely;
f. The amount and type of driver inputs necessary for a vehicle equipped with comma one to operate safely.
5. Provide a detailed description of the basis for your response to Request No. 4, including a description of any testing or analysis to determine safe operating conditions for a vehicle equipped with comma one.
6. Describe the steps you have taken or plan to take to ensure the safe operation of a vehicle equipped with comma one, including but not limited to automated shutoff of comma one features and owner education.
7. Provide a list by make, model, model year or year of production of each vehicle for which you support or anticipate supporting use of the comma one.
8. Describe in detail any steps you have taken to ensure that installation of the comma one in any supported vehicle does not have unintended consequences on the vehicle’s operation.
9. Describe the functionality of comma one, if any, if installed in an unsupported vehicle.
10. Have you done any analysis or testing of the impact or potential impact of comma one on the vehicle’s compliance with the FMVSS? If yes, please describe the analysis or testing in detail and provide supporting documentation. If no, describe why not.
11. Describe in detail how the comma one impacts a vehicle’s rearview mirror, including whether it requires removal of the rearview mirror or the extent to which it blocks or obstructs the rearview mirror.
12. State your position on how the comma one does or does not affect a vehicle’s compliance with FMVSS No 111, Review Mirrors (49 CFR 571.111), and provide any supporting information or documentation to support your position.
13. State the date on which you currently plan to begin selling the comma one, and provide a list of all retailers and/or websites through which you anticipate selling the comma one.
14. State the date on which you currently plan to begin shipping the comma one.
15. Provide any other information which you believe supports the safety of the comma one.
Classic government. Self-driving technology should benchmarked against how good people are at driving (and how often they kill and injure people), as opposed to being proven intrinsically safe like a car part.
1) Figure out how to explain a nuanced argument to their constituents.
2) Block progress until their explanation problem goes away (in this case, by raising the benchmark).