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

DMV ‘revisiting’ its approach to regulating Tesla’s public self-driving test

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 106 posts

Re: DMV ‘revisiting’ its approach to regulating Tesla’s public self-driving test

#71

Post by martindbp »

Pyramus wrote: post #63
martindbp wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wholeheartedly agree. I don't give much weight to the negativity on HN anymore. VR bad, crypto bad, Tesla bad, autonomous vehicles bad, billionaires in space bad. To me it's pretty clear that Tesla's audatiousness in pushing FSD could move up the advent of L4 by years, possibly saving hundreds of thousands of lives, for very little downside. In fact, I believe human+FSD is already safer on average, just due to the fa…

> In fact, I believe human+FSD is already safer on average, just due to the fact that FSD requires the driver to watch the road. Are you saying that 'Full Self Driving' is safer because it is not full self driving?

Yes, the combination of FSD and human may be safer. Deploying it at scale allows Tesla to accelerate the progress towards true FSD, at which point humans would not have to pay attention.

Re: DMV ‘revisiting’ its approach to regulating Tesla’s public self-driving test

#72

Post by sideshowb »

simion314 wrote: post #62
sideshowb wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trouble is it's still quite hard to model who will have a collision next, because collisions each year are still far fewer than the number of drivers. Although from a social standpoint they are too frequent, from a purely statistical point of view they are rare - in the sense of being the sort of event you might model with a poisson distribution. Sure, driving history can give an indication, but ultimately anyone…

Sure but statistics show some things, like drunk driving is bad so is AI the ONLY solution to drunk driving? Speeding is also aproblem is AI the ONLy solution to speeding? Texting or losing focus is a problem is Ai driving the ONLY solution? No, there is more then 1 solution , tech can be used to help with preventing drunk driving, speeding and losing focus. Tech could be used for drive assist to help on tricky situa…

Ah right, I think we're kind of on the same page. Full AI control of driving is likely 20 years away, and we should plan to have human drivers on the roads still for 30+ years. Anything we can do in the interim to improve our societal safety/utility tradeoff is good.

Re: DMV ‘revisiting’ its approach to regulating Tesla’s public self-driving test

#73

Post by XenophileJKO »

mavhc wrote: post #67
thereisnospork wrote: post #16

In other news, coming to your local bar, high school, and nursing home parking lots: The 2022 Hummer EV with 1,000hp capable of propelling its 9,000+ pounds to 60 mph in 3 seconds or less. Legally operable by anyone with a pulse[0]. I'm not sure its the AI drivers of the future that worry me. [0]Just about. https://www.gmc.com/electric/hummer-ev

Given the rate that non China/Tesla companies make EVs I wouldn't worry, they'll have sold about 12 by 2025

I wouldn't mind owning one though.

Re: DMV ‘revisiting’ its approach to regulating Tesla’s public self-driving test

#74

Post by XenophileJKO »

yumraj wrote: post #49
erulabs wrote: post #32

This topic aside, I guess I just feel like if the Hacker community is saying “don’t build things! It’s dangerous! What if someone gets hurt! Go DMV! Put a stop to that!”, then maybe I don’t want to be a Hacker anymore.

Sure, why do we even need DMV and driver's license. Anyone and of any age should be allowed to drive, since who cares it's dangerous since hackers want it that way. Who is DMV to tell someone whether they can or cannot drive. While we're at it, let's argue that FDA shouldn't worry about drug/vaccine trials? Perhaps as soon as a company makes something, it should be given to the people, since hackers . I'm sure pharma…

It would actually be nice if the FDA just published an opinion and let me make the choice whether I wanted to use the drug or not.

Re: DMV ‘revisiting’ its approach to regulating Tesla’s public self-driving test

#75

Post by omegalulw »

the8472 wrote: post #57
mwill wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's fair to view Telsa's FSD as a single (very prolific) driver. If there were multiple viral videos of a single person veering into oncoming traffic, I wouldn't care how many hours of video there was of them NOT veering into oncoming traffic there was tbh, I would still like to see some intervention.

No, that's not how you make reasonable policy. That's just listening to your gut reaction to such a video. Gut reactions do not work at this scale because this "single prolific driver" drives far more than a human in their lifetime. Therefore even rare events become common. Put a different way, as driven distances goes up the probability of having some scary event approaches 1. What we want to know at which rate it a…

And are you advocating that the public policy be to allow these self driving tests without knowing how reckless they are?

Re: DMV ‘revisiting’ its approach to regulating Tesla’s public self-driving test

#76

Post by omegalulw »

erulabs wrote: post #32

This topic aside, I guess I just feel like if the Hacker community is saying “don’t build things! It’s dangerous! What if someone gets hurt! Go DMV! Put a stop to that!”, then maybe I don’t want to be a Hacker anymore.

This is such a sad take - "move fast and break things" becomes a bad approach when you are breaking bones. It's always a risk reward tradeoff and in this case it's up to Tesla to demonstrate that the risk is manageable.

Re: DMV ‘revisiting’ its approach to regulating Tesla’s public self-driving test

#77

Post by willcipriano »

omegalulw wrote: post #76
erulabs wrote: post #32

This topic aside, I guess I just feel like if the Hacker community is saying “don’t build things! It’s dangerous! What if someone gets hurt! Go DMV! Put a stop to that!”, then maybe I don’t want to be a Hacker anymore.

This is such a sad take - "move fast and break things" becomes a bad approach when you are breaking bones. It's always a risk reward tradeoff and in this case it's up to Tesla to demonstrate that the risk is manageable.

Move fast and break your own things, not my things. I don't have equity.

Re: DMV ‘revisiting’ its approach to regulating Tesla’s public self-driving test

#80

Post by simion314 »

mavhc wrote: post #64
simion314 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Does anyone have good data on comparing deaths per mile driven between various auto brands? Hopefully this evaluation will force Tesla to share the data as the other companies, hopefully the army of fanboys have nothing against transparency.

USA drives 3.225 trillion miles per year, and kills 38000 people, that's about 1 death per 100 million miles. According to the anti Tesla site above, Tesla cars kill 1 person per 200 million miles. That's not accounting for deaths from pollution though

It is easy to use statistics bad. For example you can compare all kind of drivers vs Tesla drivers , you don't have teens driving Teslas so stats are not the same.

You can compare all cars vs Tesla and you still have bad stats since Tesla are new and expensive cars, you can't compare with old cheap cars.

You can compare autopilot vs human drivers and is still bad stats because most of autopilot miles are on good conditions on big hihgways so you would need to compare on the exact same roads.

TL:DR you need stats for the similar driver population, similar car prices and age and drive assist, similar roads. The TFA asks for more transparency so we would get more data and maybe we get better stats or more bad statistics, that we need to debug.

Post reply on HN