Self-Driving Cars Must Meet 15 Benchmarks in U.S. Guidance • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by nommm-nommm » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 3:21 PM UTC

Filligree wrote: post #12

CaptSpify wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> autonomous vehicles should definitely not be legislated on a state-by-state basis. Why do you say that? I have no opinion either way, just curious

Cars move. Splitting the laws by state would mean also splitting the market, and allowing cars on the road which would be illegal to e.g. drive into Texas. Really, it should be international.

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.

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?

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

#52

Post by Matthias247 » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 3:23 PM UTC

euroclydon wrote: post #41

I'm surprised that self-driving technology is focusing on replacing the driver as an autonomous actor, processing visual and radar/lidar signals in order to know about its surroundings. I've always thought we'd get further faster by having automobiles also talk to other vehicles nearby, and design roads to support the computer driven vehicles. Two examples are: 1) If the vehicle is talking to the cars in front of it,…

The reason is that there are and for the foreseeable future will be things that are not networked. Lots of legacy cars, bicycles, pedestrians, trains. In some areas probably even animals on the road. If cars don't work in these environments they are pretty much useless.

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

#53

Post by jcranmer » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 3:32 PM UTC

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'…

> 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).

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

#54

Post by helthanatos » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 3:36 PM UTC

euroclydon wrote: post #41

I'm surprised that self-driving technology is focusing on replacing the driver as an autonomous actor, processing visual and radar/lidar signals in order to know about its surroundings. I've always thought we'd get further faster by having automobiles also talk to other vehicles nearby, and design roads to support the computer driven vehicles. Two examples are: 1) If the vehicle is talking to the cars in front of it,…

And when an old vehicle can't be driven on the road? I can't see laws to prevent old vehicles for at least 40 years... You can still not wear a seatbelt if your car was manufactured without one, so I would think anything complementing only autonomous vehicles would be met with public outcry.

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

#55

Post by rjsw » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 3:36 PM UTC

euroclydon wrote: post #41

I'm surprised that self-driving technology is focusing on replacing the driver as an autonomous actor, processing visual and radar/lidar signals in order to know about its surroundings. I've always thought we'd get further faster by having automobiles also talk to other vehicles nearby, and design roads to support the computer driven vehicles. Two examples are: 1) If the vehicle is talking to the cars in front of it,…

Car manufacturers were discussing this kind of thing about 15 years ago.

We were working on diagnostic and emissions checking standards but there was the expectation that we would be able to make use of secure network links to cars at some point in the future.

The question at the time was which would come first. Would a requirement to do emissions testing under real-world conditions push the introduction of radio networks that could also be used for cars to talk to each other or would the road-train type applications be the initial use case.

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

#56

Post by pveierland » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 3:37 PM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #29

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…

Disagree with almost all of this. Liability should be with the owner of the car, like it mostly is today. They are the ones buying it and operating it on the public roads. They should have insurance to cover this liability.

Given that for autonomous vehicles the human will be a passenger and not participate in vehicle control, it makes sense that it is the manufacturer of the autonomous vehicle who is liable for faults caused by its own operation. Take an example where you signal your car to come pick you up at a location. If the car were to get into an accident on its way to you, and a software bug in the vehicle implementation is the cause of the accident, it would make sense that the manufacturer is liable for this accident.

Volvo is one manufacturer who have stated clearly that they will assume liability for the operation of their autonomous cars:

https://www.media.volvocars.com/global/en-gb/media/pressrele...

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

#57

Post by Qworg » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 3:37 PM UTC

seren wrote: post #43

rubidium wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now you understand the job of systems engineering :) Verify components, validate the entire system is the typical approach.

The point I was trying to make is that if you have actuators running MISRA C that are going to be driven by something written in Tensorflow, does it still makes sense to have a requirement to use MISRA C in the first place for the low level part ?

Most certainly - safety should be guaranteed at the lowest level, even if Tensorflow gets borked.

Think of it as a failure cascade - if Tensorflow breaks, the car can safely stop. If the low level stuff breaks, the car may not be able to stop (or go).

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

#58

Post by BurningFrog » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 3:44 PM UTC

e40 wrote: post #18

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.

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.

Economists, based on empirical research, by and large agree that "Regulatory Capture" will normally make regulations work in the interest of the major companies in an industry, rather than the public interest.

This is a social science result, not a meme.

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

#59

Post by BurningFrog » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 3:46 PM UTC

euroclydon wrote: post #41

I'm surprised that self-driving technology is focusing on replacing the driver as an autonomous actor, processing visual and radar/lidar signals in order to know about its surroundings. I've always thought we'd get further faster by having automobiles also talk to other vehicles nearby, and design roads to support the computer driven vehicles. Two examples are: 1) If the vehicle is talking to the cars in front of it,…

That is happening too, but it's an independent technology that can also be very useful in human driven vehicles.

https://www.wired.com/insights/2014/09/connected-cars/

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

#60

Post by maylibertarian » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 3:47 PM UTC

e40 wrote: post #18

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.

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.

One problem is that regulations tend to accumulate. I like what Canada does with its "one for one rule" which removes one piece of old outdated regulation for every new regulation made. In fact, at first when British Columbia implemented this law, they did 2 for 1 to clean out old laws, until later switching to 1 for 1.

http://www.npr.org/2015/05/26/409671996/canada-cuts-down-on-...