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.
If "yes," then it's not self-driving.
Do pilots still need licenses in the age of autopilot? Well yes because machines aren't infallible.
For a long time, an autonomous car will not be driverless. People need to get over this notion that next year a car will drive itself and you'll sit in the back with a Martini and the paper. That probably wont happen in our lifetimes.
Initially, fully autonomous modes will only be permitted on certain roads (think limited access roads like highways, freeways and autobahns). This will last years as engineers are even more conservative than law makers. The next step is likely to be special lanes on A roads. It will be a long time before autonomous cars are good enough to operate on a B road or suburban street.
Ultimately, because the law requires someone to be responsible for the operation of the machine it means a qualified operator will need to be at the controls whilst in operation. Same with a lot of other automated systems (such as long distance trains).
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
if you can't manualy control it do you really own it?
Oh Gawd, they'll be licensed like Windows:
"Car, please plot a course to Milwaukee and engage."
"I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that. Automotive Pro is limited to trips of 500 kilometers or less. Please enter your Automotive Ultimate license code."
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
And I stopped listening right there.
Only fucking MORONS want this sort of thing.
When you're in a piece of heavy machinery, like a car, even if you're NOT driving it, you DON'T want to be impaired in case of an emergency.
So, drinking in a self-driving car is pretty much out. And for many of the reasons this dipshit talked about. MALFUNCTIONS.
Before you bring up bus and rail transport. Keep in mind, there are people actually driving those. And, in the case of long distance trains, crews full of people. All better trained at running the transportation than you are.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
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?
Why don't we just incorporate them?
Then they'll legally be people, and they can get their own driver's licenses!
You would need a 'driver' for a driver-less car as much as you need a horse for a horse-less carriage.
Lets say my self driving car runs someone over... who is liable?
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
... car drives license. License drives you.
Do pilots still need licenses in the age of autopilot? Well yes because machines aren't infallible.
This is a terrible analogy. First autopilot for a plane cannot taxi the aircraft so it is not feature complete. Secondly the consequences of mechanical failure in a car are far less severe and you can probably solve most of the ones which do not themselves involve the engine dying by having a kill switch and a steering wheel: all you have to do is yank the switch and steer the now rapidly braking car out of trouble. A kill switch on an aircraft is a somewhat less viable option which is why you need a pilot. This is also why commercial pilots have far more training than bus drivers.
Since the 1960s we have been automating space travel and airlines, and still need pilots and astronauts because when the shit hits the proverbial fan humans are required to intervene.
We have pilots to make passengers feel good. We have astronauts because we can't make a robot as dextrous as a human yet.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Nothing, and that is an absolutely nothing, has ever been made by man which has been perfect.
A self-driving car does not have to be perfect. It just has to be better than the alternative.
With motor vehicles already being the number one killer in the US annually, we want human intervention early and often.
Isn't the fact that motor vehicles are already the number one killer in the US annually actually an argument for automated cars?
As stated above, a half a century has not perfected "self driving" anything else.
Five centuries of work before that never perfected heavier-than-air flying machines either, until one year, presto, all the necessary preconditions were finally met and airplanes became a reality. There's nothing linear about progress.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Usually someone who rear-ends a car (a tailgater) is at fault for such a collision, at least from the insurance company's perspective.
The story of the AF447 crash is precisely that: the human took over, and crashed.
What I wanted to show by bringing up this example is that in current airplane design, there are circumstances in which automation is known to fail (in this case, unreliable/defective sensors). In these circumstances, the systems are designed to give control back to the pilot. The rationale for this is quite clear. It could be argued that fully working automated systems are safer and more reliable than humans. However, automated systems with detected failures are not.
So the pilot is not there to make passengers feel better: he is a part of the automation backup system. Of course, sometimes this backup does not work: no system is perfect.
For automated cars, the situation is a bit different. As you pointed out, drivers are not trained for such contingencies. And if a problem happens, the car can just stop on the side of the road, while the plane does not have this option.
Actually, this would be a problem. The USAF is currently struggling with some of this - they automated their drones too much, operators don't have enough to do to keep proper attention on the drone in case something does happen. They're actually considering removing some of the automation...
I don't disagree that this is the most likely current situation, but it's going to be virtually impossible to keep the driver from doing other things as you remove more responsibility and control from them.
I don't read AC A human right