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

41–50 of 150 posts

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#41

Post by csomar »

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…

The pilot should be there when the Software fails, and that's why he shouldn't be busy with something else. It adds to security, and it's worth it (from my point of view) whatever is the cost.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#42

Post by pjscott »

jordanb wrote: post #28
nickpinkston wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

As your story illustrates, humans and machines both have failure rates. Sometimes the presence of humans actually makes a system less safe. The meltdown at Three Mile Island, for example, would not have happened if a panicked human operator had not overridden the automatic emergency cooling system.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#43

Post by janesvilleseo »

kwis wrote: post #30
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 manufacture…

I believe your assumption is correct as well. All of these 'new high tech safety toys' are the tip of the iceberg. With all of these components being used and people becoming comfortable with them, we will soon see more adoption towards driverless cars.

I think another major milestone towards this will be the next generation of GPS, with the increased accuracy it will help guide the cars where they need to go.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#45

Post by joel_ms »

>But it’s clear that in the early part of the 20th century, the original advent of the motor car was not impeded by anything like the current mélange of regulations, laws and lawsuits.

They did try in the 19th century though, at least in the UK, with the Locomotive Acts[1]. The way those laws went out of their way to protect the status quo (i.e. horse-powered transport) is an interesting parallell to today's possible transition from human-controlled to computer-controlled transport.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locomotive_Acts

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#46

Post by paganel »

melling wrote: post #8

One idea would be to make some long haul roads, or sections of them, completely driverless. Maine to Miami along a section of I95, or NYC to LA. We could start the test with tractor trailers. Let them drive for a few years and tune the system. There would be a huge economic benefit to allowing trucks to run 24x7 without drivers.

> There would be a huge economic benefit to allowing trucks to run 24x7 without drivers.

What would happen to the current drivers? Which new jobs should they pick?

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#47

Post by gst »

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…

"Londoners apparently do not feel comfortable being driven by a non-living thing."

Does not surprise me. Most Europeans have not even adapted to automatic transmission in cars, and still believe that a human can switch gears better with manual transmission (which has not been true for decades now). Makes me wonder if they ever adapt to fully automated driving.

(And yes, I'm saying this as a European).

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#48

Post by rmc »

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 in which seatbelts cause fatalities (even when used properly)

Do you have an example?

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#49

Post by nostromo »

fizx wrote: post #34
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…

This argument (while good) won't apply to cars for simple economic reasons. Having a human pilot or subway driver costs 1 marginal person for hundreds of people. Having an extra driver per car costs 1 person per person. I will strongly bet that the two orders of magnitude difference in cost will overcome the bureaucracy. Additionally, once cars become sufficiently advanced, it will be much cheaper to insure a self-dr…

> Having an extra driver per car costs 1 person per person.

If the car has some sort of payload (like a Semi or UPS truck), then this makes total sense. If the human is the payload, then there is no benefit at all. (Well, other than being able to multi-task -- but if you're working from your car, why not just work from home and skip the commute?)

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#50

Post by eru »

TheAmazingIdiot wrote: post #16
fleitz wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The nanny state is what you get when you involve government in issues of health insurance and its kin. The laws and regulations then turn towards cost reduction along with "taxes" to discourage higher health costs. We only have the cigarette laws, seatbelt laws, and other 'endanger self only' actions that are regulated.

As a non-smoker I like smoking bans, since smoking affects me as a by-stander, too. I would also be OK with people injecting heroin instead of smoking---anything that doesn't stink.
Post reply on HN