Slashdot Mirror
Would You Need a License To Drive a Self-Driving Car?
agent elevator writes Not as strange a question as it seems, writes Mark Harris at IEEE Spectrum : "Self-driving cars promise a future where you can watch television, sip cocktails, or snooze all the way home. But what happens when something goes wrong? Today's drivers have not been taught how to cope with runaway acceleration, unexpected braking, or a car that wants to steer into a wall." The California DMV is considering something that would be similar to requirements for robocar test-driver training." Hallie Siegel points out this article arguing that we need to be careful about how many rules we make for self-driving cars before they become common. Governments and lawmakers across the world are debating how to best regulate autonomous cars, both for testing, and for operation. Robocar expert Brad Templeton argues that that there is a danger that regulations might be drafted long before the shape of the first commercial deployments of the technology take place.
Simply this. To elaborate further. Self-driving cars should be the legal equivalent to sitting in the back of a taxi. Even from an insurance/liability standpoint, owning one means you're responsible/liable for fuel & maintenance - and that's about it. It should be down to the manufacturer to ensure safe, autonomous operation. (Otherwise, things such as self-valet and timed pick-ups won't happen)
Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
This also makes me think, will you need insurance for a self-driving car? If two self-driving cars are involved in a collision, who is responsible for the damages? You could say the manufacturer is responsible - but what if it's a collision between a self-driving car and a human-driven car? Or, will manufacturers be willing to take on the burden of providing insurance for each car they sell?
Therefore, you either keep the abstraction simplified and require the pilot to do a bit more work, or re-instate the flight engineer.
Last year I worked on a Stacker/Reclaimer (EG the big wheely bucket loaders that either scoop up huge piles of coal, or stack coal into piles), and has an operator out in a cabin doing the driving. The same system was being sold to two different customers. The first customer wanted an automatic mode that would guide the machine around the piles of coal and scoop/deliver in order to get an optimal materiel field while the operator sat back and basically watched.
The second customer basically said "I don't want no damn stinkin' automatic mode, because if I'm payin' for an operator to sit out there, he better be working"
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
We don't deal with malfunctioning PEOPLE right now. Drunks, old people, and visual impaired people routinely climb behind the wheel everyday.
We don't deal with these problems, because we have bad laws. We have bad laws because politicians want to please lobbyists, and don't want to seem "soft" on crime or negligence. As a result, they pass laws that are too strict (DUI laws being a classic example: studies show the majority of people are NOT significantly impaired at 0.08%).
When unreasonable laws are passed which victimize pretty much "innocent" people, people lose respect for the law. Not just DUI but also (former or at least getting there) marijuana laws are great examples.
A self-driving system doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be better than what we have now when we scale it up.
Nope. Based on past advances in automobiles (ABS, airbags, power steering, computer throttle control), what will happen is that they will get released, and they will have some major screwups (or public perception of screwups anyway), and there will be a flurry of very heavy-duty lawsuits, and it will go away for a while. Then they'll come back in new and improved form. Then there will be a couple of more lawsuits, and some recalls. Sales will go down a bit and improve again. And it will gradually smooth out. Probably.
It's a bit like the "ringing" effect in some kinds of oscillators.
By that theory, nobody ever drives anywhere, because there could be an unexpected road closure. I go lots of places where there is only one road, and if it is closed (which happens) then you can either try the next day, or drive an extra 250 miles. I've never once heard of it as a reason people don't go to those places. Even a doctor isn't going to stay in town and never go to the beach on a day off because of some small percent chance the road would be closed.
If the car is leased with a service agreement (likely for early versions) then you probably just call roadside assistance if it strands you, and they send a tow truck, same as AAA.
Gosh, nobody would even play golf, because of the lightning risk.
So you never ride drunk in a cab in case the cabbie has a heart attack? For every argument about this, substitute chauffeured car for self-driven car and run it through that filter first.
You'll find that people hold self-driven cars to a much higher standard than we have today. I think people just fear change.
Learn to love Alaska
No, a certain level of risk is acceptable, If we stopped driving altogether then that too, would decrease accidents. But in life we accept a level or risk, you can't make anything 100% safe.
If the logic any saved lives justifies, any law then you should ban drinking altogether, I am sure drinking increases your chances of hurting/killing someone, through violence.
This is the same logic they use to justify anti-terrorist laws, some people died because terrorism, it doesn't matter that your chances of dieing from wearing slippers is higher, the government needs to violate your privacy in order to protect you, because 1 life saved is worth it.
People die, it is sad, but it is part of life, and I believe an important part. If we constantly live in fear of dieing then we will never really live.