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

101–110 of 300 posts

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

#101

Post by sharemywin »

owyn wrote: post #79

It wasn't mentioned in the bloomberg article, but the 15 areas covered are: • Data Recording and Sharing • Privacy • System Safety • Vehicle Cybersecurity • Human Machine Interface • Crashworthiness • Consumer Education and Training • Registration and Certi cation • Post-Crash Behavior • Federal, State and Local Laws • Ethical Considerations • Operational Design Domain (operating in rain, etc) • Object and Event Dete…

Now if the could just come up with some "Data recording and Privacy" regulations for all electronic devices. So, Google and Facebook can stop creeping me out. They're like the creepy neighbors that always look at out the window to see what I'm doing.

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

#102

Post by shanusmagnus »

the_duke wrote: post #64
euroclydon wrote: post #41

I'm surprised that self-driving technology is focusing on replacing the driver as an autonomous actor, processing visual and radar/lidar signals in order to know about its surroundings. I've always thought we'd get further faster by having automobiles also talk to other vehicles nearby, and design roads to support the computer driven vehicles. Two examples are: 1) If the vehicle is talking to the cars in front of it,…

While networked cars are interesting, there is also a massive security issue here. Hackers will easily figure out a way to spoof the communication, and could play with traffic. There are mitigations for most issues, but it's a complex topic. Just imagine some scenarios: -) Spoof an emergency break advisory that causes tailing cars to also do an emergency break. (could be mitigated by first observing that cars in fron…

All good points. Seems like you could get around it by using these other-car communications as noisy signals and weighting evidence against the world as the car sees it, e.g., if you get a spoofed emergency brake advisory, and the car's own percepts suggest there's no reason to brake, the resultant action may be to not brake. The signal from the other car[s] becomes just another feature.

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

#103

Post by maxwell »

Someone1234 wrote: post #26
nerdponx wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 relat…

And it is a massive problem. For example vehicle window tinting laws vary wildly from state to state (and arguably they're more liberal in states that get hotter, and more restrictive in states with gang issues) so you can own a vehicle that is legally tinted in your home state, but gets ticketed when it crosses a state border. Daylight running lights are another example, some states require them, while others do not…

> window tinting laws vary wildly from state to state

Looks like they're strictest in Alaska, California, D.C., Delaware, Iowa, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island.

http://tintlaws.com

http://tinting-laws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/tint-perc...

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

#105

Post by pmont »

friendlygrammar wrote: post #63
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.

How can a website where the majority of people likely live in Silicon Valley actually believe that the majority of government regulation is good? Any regulation needs to be intensely scrutinized because the implications are not even completely understandable when they are created.

while I agree that regulation should be intensely scrutinized, and that the implications of a piece of regulation are usually not fully understood until after it has been implemented, the idea that the majority of regulation is "bad" is myopic.

Well-written regulation (and I would argue that the majority of regulations in the US are well-written) serves the public interest. Two immediate examples that come to mindt are the Glass-Steagall act, which separated commercial banking from speculative trading until it was repealed by GLB in the 80s (opening the door for the financial crisis) and the FDA. I would prefer to live in a country where glass stegall was still in place and the FDA was even stronger than it is today.

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

#106

Post by nerdponx »

wyager wrote: post #76
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.

A regulation that seems sensible to one cultural group might seem like ridiculous overreach to another cultural group. The US is one of the most polycultural countries in the world, so any regulation is bound to piss a lot of people off. It's better to be judicious with regulation in such situations. Gun control is a great example that seems to confuse a lot of non-Americans. To your average San Franciscan, who has n…

I'm ignorant on ranching. Are wild hog stampedes a non-trivial threat to ranchers?

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

#107

Post by plandis »

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.

I just assume that the government work do anything without a benefit for themselves. In this case they are probably getting some nice benefits from the automakers.

I say this as someone who has failed to even get a non-form letter answer from any of my elected officials state level or higher. I'm convinced that money is the only way to affect policy.

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

#108

Post by CPLX »

2bitencryption wrote: post #95
owyn wrote: post #79

It wasn't mentioned in the bloomberg article, but the 15 areas covered are: • Data Recording and Sharing • Privacy • System Safety • Vehicle Cybersecurity • Human Machine Interface • Crashworthiness • Consumer Education and Training • Registration and Certi cation • Post-Crash Behavior • Federal, State and Local Laws • Ethical Considerations • Operational Design Domain (operating in rain, etc) • Object and Event Dete…

This seems suspiciously like government getting something right... with regards to a quickly-evolving new technology market... has this ever happened before?

Well there was the whole Federal Government inventing the internet thing at one point.

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

#109

Post by ticklemyelmo »

owyn wrote: post #79

It wasn't mentioned in the bloomberg article, but the 15 areas covered are: • Data Recording and Sharing • Privacy • System Safety • Vehicle Cybersecurity • Human Machine Interface • Crashworthiness • Consumer Education and Training • Registration and Certi cation • Post-Crash Behavior • Federal, State and Local Laws • Ethical Considerations • Operational Design Domain (operating in rain, etc) • Object and Event Dete…

The cynic in me immediately interpreted "Post-Crash Behavior" as the exact opposite priority from "Privacy".

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

#110

Post by chipperyman573 »

vblord wrote: post #97
owyn wrote: post #79

It wasn't mentioned in the bloomberg article, but the 15 areas covered are: • Data Recording and Sharing • Privacy • System Safety • Vehicle Cybersecurity • Human Machine Interface • Crashworthiness • Consumer Education and Training • Registration and Certi cation • Post-Crash Behavior • Federal, State and Local Laws • Ethical Considerations • Operational Design Domain (operating in rain, etc) • Object and Event Dete…

Interesting "Federal, State and Local Laws". So what happens when the self driving car violates a law and the police office pulls it over. Who gets the ticket? If there is no steering wheel... can it even get pulled over?

If I were to guess, once self-driving cars are widespread, cars won't be pulled over any more for driving-related issues (ie, cops won't radar any more). However, they will probably be required to have a kill switch that can pull it over for other reasons (ie, if the cops thought your car was the getaway vehicle from a bank robbery)

This is of course once almost all cars are self-driving so it'll be interesting to see what happens in the midterm.

Post reply on HN