Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 376 posts

Re: U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles

#351

Post by datavirtue »

robbrown451 wrote: post #275
datavirtue wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm wondering why pedestrian accident prevention isn't standard equipment already. We have sensors all over, adaptive cruise...everything is in place except the junior-developer grade software routine to stop instead of hitting shit. Shows where the priorities are.

Are you saying that they don't work hard to avoid having their cars hit pedestrians? Really? And no, this isn't "junior-developer grade software routine." They also don't want the car slamming on its brakes in the middle of traffic because a plastic bag blew by in front of the car.

Please, tell me about all the cars right now that avoid hitting pedestrians and bicycles and wheel chairs. If impact immenent (7th grade algebra) then stop.

Re: U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles

#352

Post by loeg »

shadowgovt wrote: post #327
loeg wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is silly. I want a self-driving car that drives me 95% of the way to the mountains, but allows me to take control on the dirt road that is the last 1-3 miles to the trailhead.

That may be available in the end. This change to the law makes it so that if someone else wants one that can't do that last 5%, it's not literally illegal to sell them that car.

I was responding to GP’s unreasonable demand:

> if the vehicle is autonomous, it should be illegal for it to have a steering wheel.

Re: U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles

#353

Post by antifa »

polygloty wrote: post #333
lkxijlewlf wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would prefer it to Windows saying, "Hey, I see you want to turn off this, ahem mobile, computer of yours. I'd like to comply, but you see, I have all these updates I'm 'bout to install for you so... yeah... Oh and don't even think of putting it in your bag because it's a Dell and they void your warranty if'n you do that. Mmmkay? P.S. Yer 'bout to miss your flight."

But doesn't the long press actually do that? Kills the power, if you really intend to do that. The warranty thing is an entire Pandora box of discussion in itself

That's clearly a manufacturer defect (on Dell or MS's part).

Re: U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles

#354

Post by antifa »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #201
digbybk wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if I'm optimistic about autonomous vehicles or just very pessimistic about human drivers. I have no confidence that the next driver making a left turn while I'm crossing the road won't kill me. I'm much more comfortable with a computer that is programmed to avoid killing me, even if the software may have the occasional bug, than with a human who may or may not prioritize my life over whatever else it is…

> I'm much more comfortable with a computer that is programmed to avoid killing me I think the real concern that the car is actually programmed explicitly to kill you if it has to, to ensure it's own safety or the safety of it's riders or something.

Shouldn't the car just slow down or stop in a dangerous situation? Anything else creates a liability and is also harder to program.

Re: U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles

#355

Post by anonporridge »

bottled_poe wrote: post #338
anonporridge wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is bullshit. Reduction of average statistical risk is what really matters and will be what is primarily responsible for driving down real world fatalities and life altering injuries. I for one am not going to stand back and let fear of new technology and unfounded preference for human driven action over automation stand in the way of making a statistical impact on reducing the 1.35 million auto fatalities that h…

It’s easy to say that from a statistical standpoint. I’m sure if you were a victim in one of these less-likely accidents at the hands of faulty autonomous tech you would not be so adamant. Forcing this technology onto people sounds a lot like fascism.

No one is forcing anything on anyone.

Just don't stand in the way of people who choose to use self driving cars because you're more afraid of it that of extremely lethal and incompetent human drivers.

Re: U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles

#356

Post by Dylan16807 »

nobody9999 wrote: post #348
Dylan16807 wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your car is not going to have a Ham license, and I already mentioned POTS; do you really think having your car sit close to a special phone-based communication station is the answer? Key fobs and walkie talkies and LoRaWAN do not have enough range to fully enable this kind of use. > Otherwise, you're pretty much begging to be locked in your car and taken on a joyride which ends with you rolling off a cliff. If hacks…

>I don't think any of your suggested radio applications are safe either. And I don't really see why half of them are better than an internet connection in the first place. The difference is that there aren't 25,000 (conservative estimate) people looking to hack/scam/destroy stuff on local radio channels. Which means that someone would need to target me specificly, not run across the poor/no security on the internet l…

If you put millions of cars on local networks with significant range you'll get tons of untargeted hacking.

If they don't have significant range then they don't solve the problem.

Re: U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles

#357

Post by qgin »

beardyw wrote: post #35

If your vehicle is heading relentlessly toward a group of schoolchildren it would be nice to have a way to override it. Either that or no windows so you won't be haunted by it every night of your life.

There will always be a big red disconnect button in all of these vehicles. Though using it is probably more likely to cause an accident than not using it.

Re: U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles

#358

Post by nobody9999 »

cf141q5325 wrote: post #284
nobody9999 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The answer is patches. The more complex and "smart" something gets the more patches you need. And since you dont want to go to the mechanic every time, firmware over the air it is. Maybe in your vehicle. But certainly never in mine. Any vehicle whose software can be remotely modified is one I'll never buy. As I said, that's a disaster waiting to happen.

I absolutely agree, however that likely means no self driving car for either of us for the given reason. Unless you are planing on weekly trips to the mechanic?

>Unless you are planing on weekly trips to the mechanic?

What? To install nightly builds? I think not.

I wouldn't put software into production (or even beta) that required weekly updates. And that's just for software to make a website or other app go, with no risk of injury or death.

Why would anyone want to be driven around in a vehicle by software that's so buggy it needs weekly updates?

How often do you update the firmware in production systems? And a commercial self-driving car definitely needs to be production quality, no?

Re: U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles

#359

Post by nobody9999 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #356
nobody9999 wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't think any of your suggested radio applications are safe either. And I don't really see why half of them are better than an internet connection in the first place. The difference is that there aren't 25,000 (conservative estimate) people looking to hack/scam/destroy stuff on local radio channels. Which means that someone would need to target me specificly, not run across the poor/no security on the internet l…

If you put millions of cars on local networks with significant range you'll get tons of untargeted hacking. If they don't have significant range then they don't solve the problem.

>If you put millions of cars on local networks with significant range you'll get tons of untargeted hacking.

Right. Which is another reason not to allow access to the "make it go" software unless you have physical access and authorization.

Re: U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles

#360

Post by nobody9999 »

TillE wrote: post #288
jedberg wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, because the server where the request is pulled from would have to be compromised, and it's a lot easier to secure a single remote server than every individual car. It's also a lot easier to monitor a single server for intrusions. Sure, that single server becomes a juicy target, but that's where the defense in depth comes in, where the car still doesn't execute the command until the user accepts it.

This is a weird, awkward solution to a problem which is far better solved cryptographically (eg, by paired SSL certs).

>This is a weird, awkward solution to a problem which is far better solved cryptographically (eg, by paired SSL certs).

Sure, client/server certificates are great. But as soon as there's a BGP hiccup/attack, a fire at the relevant data center, a moron with a backhoe, among other eventualities, you're screwed.

Autonomous vehicles (as well as those with drivers) need to be, as the name says, autonomous. Not dependent on some online resource.

I'll say it again: Vehicles should not be dependent/accessible/updateable over the Internet. Full stop.

Post reply on HN