Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 150 posts

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#21

Post by montagg »

jxcole wrote: post #9

My dad works in the airplane industry and had an interesting story to tell me that relates to this. (I'm not sure exactly how accurate it is or what the source is, sorry). Apparently, it is illegal for pilots to read while flying. Even if they are heading in a straight line with no one around for miles. This is because one time an pilot wasn't paying attention and due to a series of software failures, the plane turne…

It's certainly not "logic," I wouldn't call it paranoia. Consider that some people just like to be more in control of their lives than they are, and they see that small bit of control slipping away every day. If you don't understand computers -- and, granted, if you're reading this forum, it's probably hard for you to put yourself in those shoes -- you're putting your life in the hands of a black box. Nevermind that you do it (unknowingly) all the time. Everything you touch is starting to become alien because it incorporates some crazy technology you've never seen before.

There's a great section in Neal Stephenson's Anathem where the science-y younger brother is speaking to his older sister, who's mechanically talented but not very techy. He says there's always a better way to build something, that you can always take the inefficiency out of whatever system you're working with. But she doesn't want that, because she wouldn't be able to fix it herself. That's how most people see technology, and to be honest, we see it similarly, because we can fix it, so it's not a threat. In 30 years, will we be able to fix the things that are running to world, and will we be as inclined to trust them as we do now?

I'm not saying it's logical, or appropriate, but it's a natural response to the situation. I think it's important to work with it rather than dismiss it.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#23

Post by izend »

jxcole wrote: post #9

My dad works in the airplane industry and had an interesting story to tell me that relates to this. (I'm not sure exactly how accurate it is or what the source is, sorry). Apparently, it is illegal for pilots to read while flying. Even if they are heading in a straight line with no one around for miles. This is because one time an pilot wasn't paying attention and due to a series of software failures, the plane turne…

There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes.

I will wage anyone that if all the cars on the road were computer driven there would be no where near 42,636 people killed per year.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#24

Post by true_religion »

georgieporgie wrote: post #3

No state has anything close to a functioning system to inspect whether the computers in driverless cars are in good working order, much as we routinely test emissions and brake lights. Having lived in Oregon, Arizona, and California, I have never had anything other than emissions routinely inspected. Demonstrate a car smart enough to monitor its own brake pad wear, alert on burnt out bulbs, and provide a clear readou…

> Demonstrate a car smart enough to monitor its own brake pad wear, alert on burnt out bulbs, and provide a clear readout of all detected issues (i.e. not a coded blinking service light, or plug interface) before you start trying to make it drive itself.

I don't know about other cars, but all model Porsche's will do exactly this. Granted, it doesn't have as many sensors as I would like--leading to it only giving an 'engine warning' light for innumerable problems, but when it comes to breaks, oils, lights, etc. it has a pretty fine grained detection pattern.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#25

Post by toddh »

Perhaps it's because software has an obvious history of being buggy. A web service won't be down for a while if this fails, hundreds of lives being at risk on a 24 hour a day basis. Maybe a little wait-and-see is a reasoned approach for a complex interactive dynamical system like this?

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#26

Post by jsdalton »

izend wrote: post #23
jxcole wrote: post #9

My dad works in the airplane industry and had an interesting story to tell me that relates to this. (I'm not sure exactly how accurate it is or what the source is, sorry). Apparently, it is illegal for pilots to read while flying. Even if they are heading in a straight line with no one around for miles. This is because one time an pilot wasn't paying attention and due to a series of software failures, the plane turne…

There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes. I will wage anyone that if all the cars on the road were computer driven there would be no where near 42,636 people k…

I too can imagine the number dropping down far lower than that, even under a thousand, let's say.

I can then imagine the newspaper headlines the few times per year that computers do end up, for whatever reason, being responsible for a small handful of deaths: "COMPUTER GLITCH KILLS FOUR PASSENGERS IN HORRIFIC CAR ACCIDENT!"

Never mind that human "glitches" are responsible for dozens of such accidents every day at present. For whatever reason, I have a strong feeling that headlines such as those will scare people worse than the way things are now.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#27

Post by erikpukinskis »

I wonder if driverless cars could start out as a tool for people with disabilities. If such use were challenged, I can imagine the supreme court taking seriously a case by a person who is quadriplegic or blind demanding the right to use a self-driving car. If they can prove them safer, it will be hard to find a compelling government interest that could offset denying the use of this assistive technology.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#28

Post by jordanb »

nickpinkston wrote: post #20
daniel-cussen wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unions have a lot to do with this as well.

A friend at Union Switch and Signal told me that the Chinese subways (which can run full-auto) had to provide work for two people for each train. One guy presses a large "Go" button to leave the station, which is automatically stopped at, and there's also an emergency stop button. The other guy has an "open / close door" control.

In Chicago, there was a case some years ago where a woman was pulled under a train by a door.

She was carrying a very expensive violin. She got off the train and the doors closed between her and the violin, with the strap around her shoulder. Because the strap was thin, it didn't activate the door's obstruction detector.

Because the violin was so expensive, she didn't want to lose it, so instead of crawling out of the strap, she stood there and waited for the conductor to notice her. One of his jobs was to verify visually that there were no problems in the station before the train started moving -- but he didn't do that. She was dragged under the train and the wheels sliced off her legs.

Point being, those people are likely serving an important safety function. The conductor didn't do his job on the Chicago train and so a woman lost her legs. But a system with no human conductor would be an unsafe system by design.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#29

Post by erikpukinskis »

fleitz wrote: post #11
jerf wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People generally cite the lawsuit threat, but the threat cuts both ways. I've seen lawsuits for putatively malfunctioning anti-lock brakes, and I've seen lawsuits for not including anti-lock brakes. At some point, once it is reasonably well demonstrated that automated cars drive more safely than humans under some circumstances, someone is going to file a lawsuit for not having automated drivers. It's only a matter of…

Yup, I forsee the current seat belt system, where even in situations when it's advisable not to be wearing a seatbelt and/or the other mandated safety systems it's still illegal. The problem is a systemic one that stems from the belief that the gov't is the omnipresent nanny of its citizenry. Note: Before I get downvoted, I recognize that statistically seat belts save lives, however, there are conditions in which sea…

There are conditions when vaccines kill children, but there is NO situation where the sensible choice is to not vaccinate your healthy child. The same with seatbelts.

Edit: Added "healthy".

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#30

Post by kwis »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #27

I wonder if driverless cars could start out as a tool for people with disabilities. If such use were challenged, I can imagine the supreme court taking seriously a case by a person who is quadriplegic or blind demanding the right to use a self-driving car. If they can prove them safer, it will be hard to find a compelling government interest that could offset denying the use of this assistive technology.

They appear to be starting as 'driver aids' on new cars. Today's higher-end cars have adopted technology that alerts you when you drift out of your lane, watches your blind spots, safely follows the car in front of you, performs emergency stops, parallel parks itself, and adjusts vehicle dynamics in a multitude of ways.

My assumption is that this is a first step towards driverless cars, as it provides the manufacturers a way to test critical technologies in a safe environment. If the dealerships aren't downloading data from these systems, and sharing it back to the engineering groups, thats an enormous wasted opportunity.

Post reply on HN