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

Self-Driving Cars Must Meet 15 Benchmarks in U.S. Guidance

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 300 posts

Re: Self-Driving Cars Must Meet 15 Benchmarks in U.S. Guidance

#11

Post by throwaway729 »

Pages 14 - 30+ of the embedded report (pages 16 - of the PDF) are particularly interesting and promising, especially the portions about transparency around privacy and ethics issues.

The report recommends that "Manufacturers and other entities should develop tests and verification methods...". Does anyone know whether verification here means software verification, or does it mean something else in this context?

Edit: Just noticed that I got to the PDF via elicash's comment and not via the linked article. Here's a link to the PDF: https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/AV%2...

Re: Self-Driving Cars Must Meet 15 Benchmarks in U.S. Guidance

#12

Post by Filligree »

CaptSpify wrote: post #9
dhagz wrote: post #5

I'm astounded that it seems like these regulations are going to be sensible and promote the technology. It's a good thing that these are going into place, since autonomous vehicles should definitely not be legislated on a state-by-state basis.

> autonomous vehicles should definitely not be legislated on a state-by-state basis. Why do you say that? I have no opinion either way, just curious

Cars move. Splitting the laws by state would mean also splitting the market, and allowing cars on the road which would be illegal to e.g. drive into Texas.

Really, it should be international.

Re: Self-Driving Cars Must Meet 15 Benchmarks in U.S. Guidance

#13

Post by DSingularity »

jacquesm wrote: post #7
mtgx wrote: post #4

The only regulation that really matters is making car manufacturers liable for accidents and they would have to pay a fine from $100,000 for the smallest accident (per car) up to $10 million per accident. When the manufacturers "can't explain" how the accident happened (after an audit was performed), they should be fined the maximum $10 million amount. Why? Because for one assuming it's just a glitch and "they don't…

> Then you'll see just how hard they scramble to make their systems safe. Chances are they'd opt-out of the opportunity altogether and wait for someone else to take the heat.

Those who opt out are those we don't want setting the bar in this domain.

If it becomes acceptable for security and safety to be secondary to "getting the cars on the road ASAP and capturing as much of the market as possible" we -- as in the consumers -- will pay the price.

I understand that some of the innovations and progress will only come when we get the cars on the road at scale, but we should still build a giant -- exactly how the comment or suggested -- to loom over the shoulders of these car companies.

Re: Self-Driving Cars Must Meet 15 Benchmarks in U.S. Guidance

#14

Post by Eric_WVGG »

mtgx wrote: post #4

The only regulation that really matters is making car manufacturers liable for accidents and they would have to pay a fine from $100,000 for the smallest accident (per car) up to $10 million per accident. When the manufacturers "can't explain" how the accident happened (after an audit was performed), they should be fined the maximum $10 million amount. Why? Because for one assuming it's just a glitch and "they don't…

There’s a lot of stupid to unwind here, but I'll just leave at this: your plan would leave a tremendous amount of ambiguity that skilled lawyers would wriggle through. That is, “what is an accident?”

Is it an accident if the driver takes control of the automated system and drives straight into a wall? Is it an accident if a non-automated truck truck with a huge branch sticking out the back obscures the automated car’s cameras, leading to a crash?

Maybe you're a cowboy coder like me who bristles at detailed project specs and prefers some sort of goal or vision to work for. I totally get that. But when it comes to accountability, nothing beats a checklist.

Bad law can be either broad and vague to the point of endless litigation and uselessness (what you're proposing), or hopelessly detailed and self-contradictory (the kind of law you're likely reacting against). This article is celebrating a good, readable middle ground. That's exactly what we want out of law.

Re: Self-Driving Cars Must Meet 15 Benchmarks in U.S. Guidance

#15

Post by nerdponx »

Filligree wrote: post #12
CaptSpify wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> autonomous vehicles should definitely not be legislated on a state-by-state basis. Why do you say that? I have no opinion either way, just curious

Cars move. Splitting the laws by state would mean also splitting the market, and allowing cars on the road which would be illegal to e.g. drive into Texas. Really, it should be international.

But this kind of fragmentation already exists today with different driving laws between states. A legal student driver in one state might not be allowed to drive in another.

Now that I'm thinking about it, it's strange that vehicles are regulated at the state not federal level. They're a big component in interstate commerce, and therefore ought to be within the jurisdiction of Congress to regulate, even under a relatively strict reading of the Constitution.

Re: Self-Driving Cars Must Meet 15 Benchmarks in U.S. Guidance

#16

Post by etendue »

throwaway729 wrote: post #11

Pages 14 - 30+ of the embedded report (pages 16 - of the PDF) are particularly interesting and promising, especially the portions about transparency around privacy and ethics issues. The report recommends that "Manufacturers and other entities should develop tests and verification methods ...". Does anyone know whether verification here means software verification, or does it mean something else in this context? Edit…

The report makes reference to "Assessment of Safety Standards for Automotive Electronic Control Systems" by NHTSA, which itself reviews ISO 26262, MIL-STD-882E, DO-178C, the FMVSS, AUTOSAR, and MISRA C.

In this context, they mean verification and validation in the systems engineering sense. Software would be included in that it is a part of the whole system.

Re: Self-Driving Cars Must Meet 15 Benchmarks in U.S. Guidance

#17

Post by intrasight »

mtgx wrote: post #4

The only regulation that really matters is making car manufacturers liable for accidents and they would have to pay a fine from $100,000 for the smallest accident (per car) up to $10 million per accident. When the manufacturers "can't explain" how the accident happened (after an audit was performed), they should be fined the maximum $10 million amount. Why? Because for one assuming it's just a glitch and "they don't…

>What happens when there are 100 million Bad shit is going to happen way before that. My expectation is that by the time there are even 10 million, all the major technical and regulatory issues will have been worked out. But of course the bad shit could totally derail this industry.

Re: Self-Driving Cars Must Meet 15 Benchmarks in U.S. Guidance

#18

Post by e40 »

gumby wrote: post #6
dhagz wrote: post #5

I'm astounded that it seems like these regulations are going to be sensible and promote the technology. It's a good thing that these are going into place, since autonomous vehicles should definitely not be legislated on a state-by-state basis.

> I'm astounded that it seems like these regulations are going to be sensible... Was that hyperbole? I would say the majority of regulations (at least in OECD countries) are sensible, and many that are not are intended to be, are outdated, or are politicized.

Many people automatically assume a government can't make up sensible regulations. There are a lot of them in the US. It's a meme you hear all the time, especially in a POTUS election year.

Re: Self-Driving Cars Must Meet 15 Benchmarks in U.S. Guidance

#19

Post by 0003 »

Filligree wrote: post #12
CaptSpify wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> autonomous vehicles should definitely not be legislated on a state-by-state basis. Why do you say that? I have no opinion either way, just curious

Cars move. Splitting the laws by state would mean also splitting the market, and allowing cars on the road which would be illegal to e.g. drive into Texas. Really, it should be international.

I think it actually has the effect that a state like CA or TX becomes the de facto regulatory-maker just based on size of the car market.

Re: Self-Driving Cars Must Meet 15 Benchmarks in U.S. Guidance

#20

Post by revscat »

e40 wrote: post #18
gumby wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm astounded that it seems like these regulations are going to be sensible... Was that hyperbole? I would say the majority of regulations (at least in OECD countries) are sensible, and many that are not are intended to be, are outdated, or are politicized.

Many people automatically assume a government can't make up sensible regulations. There are a lot of them in the US. It's a meme you hear all the time, especially in a POTUS election year.

And is the fundamental belief of libertarians: that governments can do nothing right, either morally or pragmatically.
Post reply on HN