31–40 of 300 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
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.
On one hand, at the low level, sensor, motor control, etc you likely have traditional hard real time/MISRA C code, but on the higher layers you probably things like DNN, image recognition, which are much less deterministic.
So I am not sure how do you reconcile these two worlds, and prove it is safe and always work in timely manner.
It seems the only sound approach would be to validate the whole system on a real road.
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the majority of regulations (at least in OECD countries) are sensible, and many that are not are intended to be, are outdated, or are politicized.
> I would say the majority of regulations (at least in
> OECD countries) are sensible
American friends have found it incredible -- for example -- that something like NICE[0] can exist and people don't assume it's trying to kill them all; cf "death panels".
I also wonder in what other developed countries Jade Helm 15 would have been controversial[1]...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_for_Health_... -- especially their guidance on how much a year of life is "worth"; see the "Cost Effectiveness section
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jade_Helm_15_conspiracy_theori...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yup, California ruins everything for the rest of us. They are the reason we can't have nice things. One notable example are the CA regulations on gasoline cans, which have driven out the design that worked well and replaced it with "spill-proof" designs that are terrible and, ironically, much easier to spill with.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Which US states require DRL now?
"Several states on the Eastern seaboard, the Southeast, and Gulf Coast (except Texas) have enforced vehicular laws since the early 1990s that require headlights to be switched on when windshield wipers are in use. This prompted the phasing in of DRLs in the affected states (from Maine to Florida including Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama)."
So it appears that DRL aren't required, but frequently standard equipment in states that require headlamps on if windshield wipers are on... Wikipedia does not list any states requiring use of headlamps all the time, though.
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.
In would say that anyone who thinks they have a handle on any significant percentage of the regulations in just one country is fooling themselves or uniquely talented. The sheer bulk neatly precludes it.
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.
This isn't a political statement as it cuts across both parties, which renders it all the more insidious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I have a hard time understanding the current AV SW stack. On one hand, at the low level, sensor, motor control, etc you likely have traditional hard real time/MISRA C code, but on the higher layers you probably things like DNN, image recognition, which are much less deterministic. So I am not sure how do you reconcile these two worlds, and prove it is safe and always work in timely manner. It seems the only sound app…
Verify components, validate the entire system is the typical approach.