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

U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 376 posts

Re: U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles

#331

Post by drusepth »

cameronh90 wrote: post #239
jedberg wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As soon as I typed that I knew someone would reply with this. :). I agree it would be nice and I sometimes miss physical switches, but imagine how clunky a Raspberry Pi would be with a physical switch. And besides, I almost never used the switch on the computer anyway. I was always told to put it into a power strip and use that, because it was a lot cheaper to replace the power strip than the broken power switch on t…

I recently disconnected the capacitive power button on my desktop thanks to my stupid cat repeatedly turning off my computer. Instead, I've turned on the feature in the BIOS to boot up when power is applied. Now, to turn on my desktop, I just flip the power switch on the back. Feels satisfyingly retro.

If you're on Windows: one habit I've developed is to always keep an unsaved notepad.exe open. When my cat hits the power button (not if), Windows will always stall and ask if I want to save the notepad first; at that point, you can press cancel to cancel the whole shutdown process. :)

Re: U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles

#332

Post by 0xADADA »

danger is a driverless car turning left onto a bridge that has washed away during a flood, mistaking the map for the territory, it drives us off the bridge because we've eliminated the brakes because we think the car is smarter than the human inside it

Re: U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles

#333

Post by polygloty »

lkxijlewlf wrote: post #319
polygloty wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think about having a switch on a laptop. And if the switch doesn't just kill power (which it shouldn't to safely shut down), then it shouldn't be a switch it might be better as a button.

I would prefer it to Windows saying, "Hey, I see you want to turn off this, ahem mobile, computer of yours. I'd like to comply, but you see, I have all these updates I'm 'bout to install for you so... yeah... Oh and don't even think of putting it in your bag because it's a Dell and they void your warranty if'n you do that. Mmmkay? P.S. Yer 'bout to miss your flight."

But doesn't the long press actually do that? Kills the power, if you really intend to do that. The warranty thing is an entire Pandora box of discussion in itself

Re: U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles

#334

Post by polygloty »

vocram wrote: post #307
polygloty wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think about having a switch on a laptop. And if the switch doesn't just kill power (which it shouldn't to safely shut down), then it shouldn't be a switch it might be better as a button.

You want a switch that also kills power without software or firmware. I had a Dell that once got stuck and the usual long press of the power button was not switching it off (probably it was sw/fw controlled). I had to take it apart and disconnect the battery, otherwise I would have lost my working day waiting for it to die.

Just like a sibling comment says I also haven't ever seen a case where a long press didn't turn a laptop off but i agree maybe a pin push button for hard restart might make sense in such cases.

Re: U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles

#335

Post by notyourday »

renewiltord wrote: post #315
notyourday wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Women specifically do not want to be in cars which they cannot even theoretically control.

Is this a thing somewhere or am I in a bubble? I know lots of women and no one has articulated this fear about a self-driving car.

Yes, you are in a bubble. The same kind of a bubble where HN geeks do not understand why Air tags are a perfect stalker device.

Re: U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles

#336

Post by salawat »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #303
Communitivity wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something controls the software that would ask for instructions, and that could be hacked. I'd also suggest a default of auto-reject after a minute, not auto-accept. When people think about attack surfaces in devices they often think about the things making repeated connections out. The thing is, every piece of reachable mutable code in the device is an attack surface, not just the software making connections. You ma…

> I'd also suggest a default of auto-reject after a minute, not auto-accept. You're suggesting that if a self-driving car has a feature to remotely summon it, such a feature should need a passenger inside to click "accept"?

Yes.

Especially if it's being summoned for some sort of service. I'd argue no vehicle should be on the road sans occupant to be honest.

What? You think that it's totally okay to have a vehicle titled to you auto -accept a request that could be coming from any moron out there?

How many levels of optimism are you on?

Re: U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles

#337

Post by umeshunni »

jedberg wrote: post #220

I think a lot of people are misreading this. Right now one of the rules to pass a crash test is that there is a steering wheel. This didn't used to be controversial, but now it is. The rules were written in the 70s and just assumed there would always be a drivers seat. The only thing here is that the government rewrote the rules to no longer assume those things. It's not saying those things aren't necessary, just not…

Another analogy is that in some countries, all cars had to pass an emissions test to be road safe. I knew someone who imported a Tesla into their country back in 2015 or so and the licensing office would not give them a license plate because they could not get a smoke test done on it.

I assume such countries changed the laws to remove that requirement once EVs were no longer a novelty.

Re: U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles

#338

Post by bottled_poe »

anonporridge wrote: post #224
bottled_poe wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Statistical equivalence is one thing, but the risk will shift within the population. Let’s set the bar a bit higher than above average ? The average driver is a dumbass. autonomous vehicles should be expected to consistently make better decisions than the best drivers, not just the average ones.

This is bullshit. Reduction of average statistical risk is what really matters and will be what is primarily responsible for driving down real world fatalities and life altering injuries. I for one am not going to stand back and let fear of new technology and unfounded preference for human driven action over automation stand in the way of making a statistical impact on reducing the 1.35 million auto fatalities that h…

It’s easy to say that from a statistical standpoint. I’m sure if you were a victim in one of these less-likely accidents at the hands of faulty autonomous tech you would not be so adamant. Forcing this technology onto people sounds a lot like fascism.

Re: U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles

#339

Post by Dylan16807 »

salawat wrote: post #336
Dylan16807 wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd also suggest a default of auto-reject after a minute, not auto-accept. You're suggesting that if a self-driving car has a feature to remotely summon it, such a feature should need a passenger inside to click "accept"?

Yes. Especially if it's being summoned for some sort of service. I'd argue no vehicle should be on the road sans occupant to be honest. What? You think that it's totally okay to have a vehicle titled to you auto -accept a request that could be coming from any moron out there? How many levels of optimism are you on?

> I'd argue no vehicle should be on the road sans occupant to be honest.

So someone napping in the passenger seat is fine, but empty isn't? Why?

> Especially if it's being summoned for some sort of service.

Especially? When it's doing some sort of service is when it's the most ridiculous to have someone hanging around doing nothing.

If you don't want a summon button, just say so. Don't say summon should need a passenger.

> You think that it's totally okay to have a vehicle titled to you auto -accept a request that could be coming from any moron out there?

I didn't say that.

I don't think even a ride share would go to anyone, but I wasn't even suggesting that, I was talking about any kind of summon at all, so by default that would be the owner.

Re: U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles

#340

Post by downut »

rukuu001 wrote: post #305
downut wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Avid bicyclist here. If I'm approaching an intersection with the possibility of conflicting with a motor vehicle even though I have clear right of way I stare at the driver's eyes. If he's not looking at me, I prepare for evasive action or possible emergency braking. Same for me going along my way and an oncoming MV turning left in front of/into me. I get a close call every year or two. I am very rude and they always…

During my 20 years of bike commuting I remember the three times someone looked me in the eye and pulled out in front of me.

I want to respond to this because I have encountered the same thing, multiple times, during my 40 years of cycling.

The implied "locked eyes therefor I am safe" is NOT a thing. I apologize to the inexperienced if I implied that. You got to watch the whole process. But in the distribution of the MV danger types, not paying attention at all is much higher IMHO.

Everyone knows this? I had this happen on my own street that I live on with a neighbor two houses down. Yeah, I was rude.

Post reply on HN