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

211–220 of 300 posts

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

#211

Post by Animats »

blazespin wrote: post #201
chc wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand this anti-autonomy cheerleading. It's like people on HN live in a parallel universe where there have been a bunch of deaths from cars running Autopilot, whereas in the world I live in, it seems to be somewhat safer than a human alone. Like, people can mess up either way, but they seem to be less likely to do so when the car is also looking out for them. What am I missing?

You have to compare the one death using autopilot to one death of people driving Teslas without autopilot. Musk tried to compare it against the universe of drivers (Teslas, kids driving crappy cars, etc), which was a complete false comparison. So the reason it was a big deal is because it was a huge fatality. Tesla drivers are generally a pretty safe bunch. Statistically, if autopilot hadn't been engaged, that death…

Two deaths using Tesla's autopilot. [1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fc0yYJ8-Dyo

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

#212

Post by greedo »

chipperyman573 wrote: post #110
vblord wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 se…

Cops pull over cars for traffic infractions for three primary reasons. The first is for driving safety, the second is for revenue, and the third is because it leads them to arrests of idiot criminals who can't be bothered to fix their tail lights.

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

#213

Post by oldmanjay »

danharaj wrote: post #112
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?

Yes. There's been a decades-long smear campaign against public management of common infrastructure.

It is truly unfortunate that among those perpetrating the smears are the public managers themselves, in the guise of doing their jobs.

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

#214

Post by blazespin »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #210
blazespin wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Automatic driving will not be reached incrementally." Not true.. There are other ways of doing this incrementally. For example, slow speeds, closed roads (no pedestrians or other cars), only in good weather, ideal conditions, etc.

There are other ways of doing this incrementally. Yes, and they're all undesirable, unworkable, or useless, as your own post points out.

They are not undesirable at all. There are plenty of circumstances where these are great use. Airports, for example. Downtown cores. Smart Cities developed from scratch. Resorts. The list goes on..

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

#215

Post by jacalata »

Domenic_S wrote: post #179
ben_jones wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They'd never do it but I imagine a system that was loud, flashy, and embarrassing, that activated when autopilot is misused (i.e. auto-pilot is demanding user intervention and intervention is not given) would be most effective in incentivizing drivers to change their behavior. I.e. a loud beeping noise that annoyed pedestrians and other drivers until you took the wheel. Kind of like how accidentally triggering your c…

The car already cuts the stereo for a moment and beeps at you. If you ignore the first warning, it mutes the stereo and beeps until you resolve the situation.

It sounds like they are suggesting something more like 'cuts the stereo and begins announcing on internal and external speakers that the driver is not paying attention and the car will slow to a stop in 5,4,3,2,...'.

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

#216

Post by ekianjo »

Animats wrote: post #211
blazespin wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to compare the one death using autopilot to one death of people driving Teslas without autopilot. Musk tried to compare it against the universe of drivers (Teslas, kids driving crappy cars, etc), which was a complete false comparison. So the reason it was a big deal is because it was a huge fatality. Tesla drivers are generally a pretty safe bunch. Statistically, if autopilot hadn't been engaged, that death…

Two deaths using Tesla's autopilot. [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fc0yYJ8-Dyo

Why was this not widely reported?

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

#217

Post by Negitivefrags »

chc wrote: post #195
Animats wrote: post #131

From the regulations: "Fall back strategies should take into account that—despite laws and regulations to the contrary—human drivers may be inattentive, under the influence of alcohol or other substances, drowsy, or physically impaired in some other manner." NHTSA, which, after all, studies crashes, is being very realistic. Here's the "we're looking at you, Tesla" moment: "Guidance for Lower Levels of Automated Vehic…

I don't understand this anti-autonomy cheerleading. It's like people on HN live in a parallel universe where there have been a bunch of deaths from cars running Autopilot, whereas in the world I live in, it seems to be somewhat safer than a human alone. Like, people can mess up either way, but they seem to be less likely to do so when the car is also looking out for them. What am I missing?

It's not anti-autonomy.

It's the offence that an engineer feels about something being marketed as something it's not.

Tesla is fooling the public. The opinion of the general public who don't drive Tesla's cars is that automated driving is already here and Tesla is leading the way.

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

#218

Post by awqrre »

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…

The law that allows the Government to access all cloud-hosted emails that are older then 6 months, without a warrant.

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

#219

Post by jaxbot »

ekianjo wrote: post #216
Animats wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two deaths using Tesla's autopilot. [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fc0yYJ8-Dyo

Why was this not widely reported?

Last I heard, nobody has been able to verify if the car was actually in autopilot mode. However, the emergency braking also clearly failed, if the police report that no attempt to stop was made is true.

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

#220

Post by rusted_planet »

abawany wrote: post #190
pmyjavec wrote: post #167

What is it about self-driving cars that has HN readers so incredibly excited? Sorry if it's a little off-topic. The reason I ask is there are plenty of other countries in the world where cars just aren't that important, let's take Netherlands for example. If you have automatic cars, society here is not just going to be that excited AFAIK. Public transport here is great and most people cycle everywhere, because it's f…

In my opinion, you mentioned the core reason why you find the excitement baffling, i.e. that you don't drive often but you find it exciting when you do. Now imagine the scenario for most of the US, a public-transport-hostile country for the most part, where millions upon millions of people burn their precious lives waiting in traffic and sucking in traffic fumes. In my mind, this is one of the most appalling wastes o…

But if I enjoy riding my motorcycle to work every day, that is my waste of time. I am all for autonomous cars, as long as I am allowed to have my vehicles and drive them when I want.

Also we all know the security on cars is weak, who needs a bomb in a terrorist attack when you can just hack something and order 50,000 cars to crash (that might sound silly, but it hackers find ways). Do you trust auto manufacturers enough to secure it? Yeah we can mail firmware updates on USB sticks, what could go wrong.

Sorry I am pretty sure I am one of those hostile drivers. They should market it as like a designated driver for the drunk. It would sell faster then.

Post reply on HN