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

141–150 of 300 posts

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

#141

Post by harryh »

rayiner wrote: post #125
2bitencryption wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Can you think of a concrete example where the government got it wrong?[1] For the sake of argument, the federal government in the last 50 years? Maybe the encryption export ban. Or the CDA, but that was quickly reversed and the part that's left (Section 230) was really instrumental in the rise of the modern web. [1] And I don't mean wrong as in "NSA spying" because you disagree with the policy. I mean like, "regulati…

Some HIPAA regulations that pre-date the rise of shared virtual servers in "the cloud" are quite outdated and cause quite a bit of trouble for no real benefit.

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

#142

Post by ghurtado »

rayiner wrote: post #139
ghurtado wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you think of a concrete example where the government got it wrong? Stem cell research.

I think 2bitencryption's point is more along the lines that the government regulates fields and that regulation quickly becomes unworkable because its a "quickly-evolving new technology market." For example, if the government mandated that all computers had to be Windows 9x-compatible that might have prevented the rise of the iPhone. The embryonic stem-cell research ban didn't have anything to do with the underlying…

Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying, I thought it was a broader question.

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

#143

Post by eck »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #130
ticklemyelmo wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I was thinking it meant the car would not drive itself away and hide after a collision :-)

That could actually be an interesting problem. It might sound like "in the event of a impact >Xg, stop, shut down, and wait for police/NTSB/etc to come investigate". But if, say, you hit a deer on a wilderness road in the winter, that behavior could lead to the passengers all dying of exposure.

Do self-driving cars have a button labeled "fuck your rules and DRIVE"?

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

#144

Post by mulletbum »

paulmd wrote: post #69
mulletbum wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What other industries, that run mechanical equipment that can kill people, do you feel these are already applied in?

Erm, apart from the punitive damages this is pretty much any product liability suit. If you make life-critical systems and your product fails you are getting sued out the wazoo - which is why many products will specifically state that they are not to be used in life-critical systems. Most mechanical equipment is not reviewed on a case-by-case basis by a regulatory industry; however aircraft incidents are. Aircraft pr…

How is this a life-critical system?

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

#145

Post by qdog »

dsr_ wrote: post #68
scribu wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone living in a country where there are very lax building codes, I would welcome regulation that mandates what colors you're allowed to use!

Why is that? I can see why there would be regulations on brick quality, but why color?

Some people love teal and pink. Having to look at or try to sell a house next to a monstrosity can be pretty horrible (or the neighbors with junker cars all over the lawn). Having been in a couple of regulated areas, I'm not much of a fan of the micromanagement that happens. However, having had my value/quality of living majorly degraded by an industrial operation moving in next door in unregulated BFE, the risk of living somewhere without rules is higher than the cost of compliance, at least for me.

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

#146

Post by SilasX »

peteretep wrote: post #34
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.

> I would say the majority of regulations (at least in > OECD countries) are sensible I think it can be shocking to non-Americans just how much the Americans distrust and think their lawmakers and -- especially shockingly, their civil servants -- are both incompetent and have malicious intent. American friends have found it incredible -- for example -- that something like NICE[0] can exist and people don't assume it'…

In fairness, Britons don't think NICE can exist -- see this case where an American went on a radio show and praised its CBA approach, while the British participants vehemently denied that it does exactly what it actually does:

>>...Britain had achieved cost-effective treatment for everyone, at the cost of some people missing very expensive treatments that might help them. I was rather congratulating myself on this answer, because NICE is beloved of health wonks everywhere; Obamacare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) is an attempt to sort of replicate it. Pointing out something the British health system can do that the American system can’t, and doing so in dryly factual tones, seemed like a good way to endear myself to the British audience.

>>The other guest, a British health official, interrupted to basically accuse me of lying; the British health system, he said, did no such thing.

>>Now I reiterate: I had not called NICE a death panel, or said that it was bad; I had simply described what NICE does, which is keep the NHS from blowing its budget on very expensive treatments that deliver relatively little value per pound spent. You can read NICE describing what NICE does on its website; the description is not significantly different from the one I gave. Being told that this was flat out wrong was surreal. Things got even more surreal when I began again to explain what NICE does, thinking that perhaps I had been unclear, and the host interrupted me and said something like “As you know, that’s false.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-08-23/health-ca...

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

#147

Post by jcranmer »

ghaff wrote: post #114
nommm-nommm wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was under the impression that most of the requirements only applied to registering a car in that State not operating the vehicle?? So, for example, NY requires yearly safety inspections and you'll get a ticket if your inspection lapsed. But you don't have to get a safety inspection to drive in NY if your car is registered in a state that doesn't require safety inspections. I could be mostly off base on this one. Th…

>Though some laws are so local sometimes it's impossible for an out of towner to know the local laws like going right on red is, as far as I know, illegal in NYC but legal... Everywhere else? How does someone from Texas supposed to know that? You've pretty much picked an outlier. And I might be inclined to argue that someone from Texas trying to drive in Manhattan for the first time has other problems :-) There are a…

It should also be mentioned that many of the divergent cases tend to be bad ideas for safety reasons anyways (passing on the right, using your cell phone when driving, even right-turn-on-red--don't do that in pedestrian-heavy areas).

Places with divergent laws make some effort to inform visitors of the divergence--you'll sometimes see electronic noticeboards saying that using your cell phone is illegal here, and sometimes permanent ones too (e.g, on entry into Virginia on interstates, you are immediately informed that radar detectors are illegal).

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

#148

Post by semi-extrinsic »

peteretep wrote: post #34
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.

> I would say the majority of regulations (at least in > OECD countries) are sensible I think it can be shocking to non-Americans just how much the Americans distrust and think their lawmakers and -- especially shockingly, their civil servants -- are both incompetent and have malicious intent. American friends have found it incredible -- for example -- that something like NICE[0] can exist and people don't assume it'…

Regarding your Jade Helm 15 question: round this neck of the wood we host every year the worlds largest cold weather military excercise, with 15-20 000 soldiers from all across NATO. We literally have US Marines and other foreign forces playing invasion right where we live, using air force, army and naval assets. There has never been any conspiracies or fears regarding this. Perhaps mainly because we appreciate you guys having our backs and knowing how to fight in snow, just in case Ivan comes over for a "visit".

On a related note, there is a truly hilarious story from a guy over on Reddit who served in the Marines, they were stationed in North Carolina and never been in snow; and who came to this exercise and of course got their asses truly handed to themselves in a snowball fight by a bunch of Norwegian schoolkids. Highly recommended reading; first comment after the OP here:

https://m.reddit.com/r/ProRevenge/comments/1w0sav/6th_grade_...

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

#149

Post by wyager »

nerdponx wrote: post #106
wyager wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The stampedes aren't, but hogs are a horrible invasive pest that causes many billions of dollars of destruction per year. They've tried trapping, poisoning, everything. The only thing that has any effect on the population is some serious firepower. The problem is so bad that you can hire people to fly around at night in helicopters with sniper rifles and thermal vision to shoot hogs. I've helped a few friends with hog control, and you'll often startle 10-20 at a time and then they'll go into hiding and you're done for the day. You need to put a lot of bullets downrange fast to have any effect.

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

#150

Post by macNchz »

eck wrote: post #143
ChuckMcM wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking it meant the car would not drive itself away and hide after a collision :-)

That could actually be an interesting problem. It might sound like "in the event of a impact >Xg, stop, shut down, and wait for police/NTSB/etc to come investigate". But if, say, you hit a deer on a wilderness road in the winter, that behavior could lead to the passengers all dying of exposure. Do self-driving cars have a button labeled "fuck your rules and DRIVE"?

A self-driving car that refuses to move after a minor accident on a wilderness road sounds like a great opening scene for a horror movie.
Post reply on HN