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

271–280 of 300 posts

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

#271

Post by wott »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #254
imh wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Autopilots in planes can take you across the world. The car analogy would be only having to pull into and out of your driveway. And while they don't use it so frequently, aren't most of the planes most people fly in (big commercial aviation) certified to autoland themselves? The connotation of autopilot is absolutely that it can fly itself. Same with tesla's autopilot.

An autopilot in a Cessna can most definitely not take you around the world. Also, autopilots even in a commercial jet keep the plane steady along a route, they don't deal with collisions at all...you could call it "lane keeping" if you want to sue the airline industry for misleading us over a term they created. Autolanding is not autopilot. In fact, autolanding is not even certified if multiple autopilots are not ava…

> Also, autopilots even in a commercial jet keep the plane steady along a route, they don't deal with collisions at all...

Yes, they do. Then the problem is when the 2 autopilots of the 2 planes take the same evasive manœuvre...

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

#272

Post by ocdtrekkie »

KKKKkkkk1 wrote: post #237
mapt wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure they understand just how many intermediate steps requiring non-obvious technical progress are going to be required between 2, 3, 4, and 5. On a premapped track, 3 is just fine at present, but Google is nowhere near 3 for the sort of adverse conditions and unmapped road alterations that are common in much of the road network. This is going to be an iterative design process if it's moving forward at all. A…

99.99...9% of my driving takes place on heavily mapped well-managed roads (occasional pothole notwithstanding) that are heavily trafficked by other cars. As far as I'm concerned, if Google can do this, their vehicle is fully autonomous.

Only like three towns are "heavily mapped" to the level required for a Google self-driving car to work. And the problem is that if the car relies on the map, your first car to see a road or a change in the road, won't know what to do.

"As far as you're concerned" doesn't mean a whole lot.

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

#273

Post by pif »

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…

Thanks for listing them, I was curious indeed.

By the way, in which area do the following requests fall:

- Yielding to an emergency vehicle with sirens on.

- Moving backwards to a safe and large enough spot when the route is too narrow to fit self-driving car and oncoming huge lorry (and there is no line marking the limit between road and ravine).

- Upon instructions from authority, recognize that the highway is closed due to an accident and, no matter what the driving code says, you actually have to make a U-turn on the highway and follow the crowd. Alternatively, just take that route (yes, the one with the large no-entry sign at the beginning) or that narrow path in the wood (yes, it exists, even if Google Maps isn't aware of it). At the bare minimum, park yourself off the road and let the others move on.

- Verify whether a queue is forming behind you. Listen to the honkers, they may be right. When you are an obstacle to the most part of traffic, moving to the side and letting others pass from time to time is sincerely appreciated.

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

#274

Post by crististm »

lisivka wrote: post #266
s_kilk wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jeez, that's pretty bad. This seems like the most basic case that autopilot is supposed to solve, and yet it still crashes?

IMHO, autonomous car should use at least two autopilot systems from independent vendors, to avoid single point of failure.

Two is not enough for voting. If you have two clocks you don't know what time it is.

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

#275

Post by ekianjo »

lisivka wrote: post #266
s_kilk wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jeez, that's pretty bad. This seems like the most basic case that autopilot is supposed to solve, and yet it still crashes?

IMHO, autonomous car should use at least two autopilot systems from independent vendors, to avoid single point of failure.

Dangerous. What if they end up with different interpretations, which one is actually correct ?

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

#276

Post by studentrob »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #270
studentrob wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is definitely level 3. Their presentation at SXSW this year shows it, https://youtu.be/Uj-rK8V-rik?t=17m54s

Nobody's saying their cool little 3D renders aren't awesome looking, but that doesn't really mean much. Google has PR down to an art form, but if you asked Google to drive one of their cars to Chicago, they couldn't do it, no matter what the weather. They only work in a small nearly closed course environment.

> if you asked Google to drive one of their cars to Chicago, they couldn't do it

Nobody here is making that claim.

If Google operated a taxi service within Austin, we would say the car operates at level 3. SAE levels say nothing about where the car is operating:

"At SAE Level 3, an automated system can both actually conduct some parts of the driving task and monitor the driving environment in some instances, but the human driver must be ready to take back control when the automated system requests"

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

#277

Post by IshKebab »

jcranmer wrote: post #53
peteretep wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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'…

> 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. The EU is often criticized (e.g., Brexit) as being something that promulgates useless regulations (e.g., curvature of a banana).

> The EU is often criticized (e.g., Brexit) as being something that promulgates useless regulations (e.g., curvature of a banana).

Yes but those almost always turn out to be made up by the Daily Mail.

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

#279

Post by d0lph »

lisivka wrote: post #266
s_kilk wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jeez, that's pretty bad. This seems like the most basic case that autopilot is supposed to solve, and yet it still crashes?

IMHO, autonomous car should use at least two autopilot systems from independent vendors, to avoid single point of failure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segal%27s_law

"A man with a watch knows what time it is. A man with two watches is never sure."

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

#280

Post by kalleboo »

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.

And then Volvo will take the whole market http://fortune.com/2015/10/07/volvo-liability-self-driving-c...
Post reply on HN