Slashdot Mirror


UK Government Releases Rules To Get Self-Driving Cars Onto Public Roads

rippeltippel writes: Ars Technica UK reports that the UK government has released the rules to get self-driving cars onto public roads. As the article reports, drivers will be required to have "a high level of knowledge about the technology used" (i.e. they'll be techies) and — most notably — will have to mimic the act of driving, to avoid confusing other drivers. The original PDF can be viewed here.

157 comments

  1. Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    A self-driving car may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
    A self-driving car must obey the orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
    A self-driving car must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

    1. Re:Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by adokink · · Score: 1

      A self-driving car may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm except if it breaks the traffic regulations. A self-driving car must obey the orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law except if it breaks the traffic regulations. A self-driving car must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws except if it breaks the traffic regulations.

    2. Re:Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      I think the main things for self driving cars to know and do..is STAY THE FUCK OUT OF MY WAY!!

      :)

      If they are going to just go the speed limit and stay in the right lanes (in the US), then, I'm game for them.

      Please just stay out of my way and let me get on with my drive.

      :)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re: Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by lostinbrave · · Score: 0

      Actually soon they will be ten time safer and better at driving than any human and they will be wizzing past you

    4. Re:Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A self-driving car may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
      A self-driving car must obey the orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
      A self-driving car must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

      You forgot Zeroth Law:
      "A self-driving car may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm."

    5. Re: Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually soon they will be ten time safer and better at driving than any human and they will be wizzing past you

      Yeah, but where's the fun in that?

      I enjoy the adrenaline rush of firing up the fun performance cars I've had over the years, and hitting the road.

      I feel sad for those folks that see a car as nothing more than rote transportation from A to B.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    6. Re: Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by cayenne8 · · Score: 0

      And I feel sad when I hear about people like you who waste precious limited resources and pollute the planet just for the fun of it.

      Hey, life is short and I'm only on this planet for a short time.

      I fully intend to make that limited time as fun and pleasurable as humanly possible within my means.

      Why should I not? Resources are there to be USED, and I'm certainly not seeing any reason to deprive myself during my short time on this planet.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    7. Re: Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Huh? The worst polluters are the ones who drive oversized SUVs in the name of 'safety' - they're having no fun at all in their cars, I promise you.

      OTOH a not-especially-polluting car can be an awful lot of fun to drive, eg. my MR2 gets about 30mpg and I don't drive it gently.

      --
      No sig today...
    8. Re: Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by Firethorn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hey, life is short and I'm only on this planet for a short time.

      Perhaps, but I plan to be around for a while longer, not to mention my kids and their kids.

      You may want to go out 'in a blaze of glory', but I want to leave something for the next generation.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    9. Re: Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      Name something fun that doesn't pollute the planet in one way or another? Unless you are sitting in a cold dark cave beating a rock against the wall for fun, you are polluting the planet.

    10. Re: Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Hey, life is short and I'm only on this planet for a short time.

      Here we see a living, breathing example of the tragedy of the commons.

      --
      No sig today...
    11. Re: Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually soon they will be ten time safer and better at driving than any human and they will be wizzing past you

      Yeah, but where's the fun in that?

      I enjoy the adrenaline rush of firing up the fun performance cars I've had over the years, and hitting the road.

      I feel sad for those folks that see a car as nothing more than rote transportation from A to B.

      Conversely, I feel sad for those folks that see a car as something more than transportation from A to B.

    12. Re: Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Name something fun that doesn't pollute the planet in one way or another? Unless you are sitting in a cold dark cave beating a rock against the wall for fun, you are polluting the planet.

      Noodling.

    13. Re: Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Unless you are sitting in a cold dark cave beating a rock against the wall for fun, you are polluting the planet.

      There isn't a direct correlation between fun/polluting. Some very fun things hardly pollute at all.

      The great evil isn't in a minority doing things, it's in the great masses doing medium-polluting things and having no fun at all. eg. Soccer moms driving their SUVs, light polluters, etc.

      --
      No sig today...
    14. Re:Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so which one applies
      1) swerve to avoid the child thus causing the pasenger to suffer injury through colliding with a wall or another vehicle .
      2) run the child over
      .
      .
      5) lawyers profit.

    15. Re: Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 0

      Huh? The worst polluters are the ones who drive oversized SUVs in the name of 'safety' - they're having no fun at all in their cars, I promise you.

      And I promise you that you're wrong... :D

      My truck is quite fun to drive and handles rather well. 2015 Yukon XL Denali 4x4, it is quite fun to drive.

      OTOH a not-especially-polluting car can be an awful lot of fun to drive, eg. my MR2 gets about 30mpg and I don't drive it gently.

      Yep, and while my truck doesn't get the MPG yours does, and it won't corner as well as you can, it actually does 0-60 MPH about as well as your MR2 does.

      And it handles better than you'd think... Much better than the last model did, now that it has GM's magnetic ride control and a wider, lower body that is stiffer than last year's...

    16. Re: Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 2

      Name something fun that doesn't pollute the planet in one way or another? Unless you are sitting in a cold dark cave beating a rock against the wall for fun, you are polluting the planet.

      Going for a walk on a beautiful day with my family... enjoying the fresh air and getting some exercise...

    17. Re:Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      The irony is that in 2 million miles of driving, Google's self-driving cars have yet to have this problem.

      Perhaps it isn't really a problem?

    18. Re:Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps but these vehicles are not being used on all terrain all road types yet are they ? How about a narrow European road with cars parked half on the pavement half on the road on both sides of the street>

    19. Re: Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it actually does 0-60 MPH about as well as your MR2 does

      9.0 v 6.9

    20. Re: Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Huh? The worst polluters are the ones who drive oversized SUVs in the name of 'safety' - they're having no fun at all in their cars, I promise you.

      OTOH a not-especially-polluting car can be an awful lot of fun to drive, eg. my MR2 gets about 30mpg and I don't drive it gently.

      Big families in big vehicles use less fuel per person than you do. Just a thought ...

    21. Re: Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by BoogieChile · · Score: 1

      No fun for you. All the fun is for all those other people who are now going faster than you.

      Remember, objects in mirror are LOSING!!

    22. Re: Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Actually soon they will be ten time safer and better at driving than any human and they will be wizzing past you

      Impossible. In order to go fast in traffic you need to take risks. These risks will be unacceptable to AI, so the only possible result is a safer AND slower journey. I'm fine with that if I just need a ride home from the pub, but when I'm going to work, no machine can compete with the types of risks I subject myself to every day.

    23. Re: Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Actually soon they will be ten time safer and better at driving than any human and they will be wizzing past you

      Yeah, but where's the fun in that?

      I enjoy the adrenaline rush of firing up the fun performance cars I've had over the years, and hitting the road.

      I feel sad for those folks that see a car as nothing more than rote transportation from A to B.

      I feel sorry for those folks who think cars are the pinnacle of fun on the road. I've also had a string of performance cars, but they are all rather pedestrian compared to a sports bike. A car is nothing more than rote transportation from A to B for me, because no car can compete with my bike for fun.

    24. Re: Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Name something fun that doesn't pollute the planet in one way or another?

      Um, pretty much everything except a car?
      If you want to get petty you could argue that going for a walk increase pollution since you breathe more, and that's more CO2, but if we're being serious, cars about the worst thing individuals can do to contribute to pollution. I have green power in my house, I carbon offset flights, but when me and billions of other people drive, it is the single biggest contributor to pollution there is.

    25. Re:Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      The irony is that in 2 million miles of driving in a controlled environment which is unlike a real road, Google's self-driving cars have yet to have this problem.

      FTFY

    26. Re:Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Nope, they are driving on the public streets, not a controlled environment...

    27. Re:Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Perhaps but these vehicles are not being used on all terrain all road types yet are they ? How about a narrow European road with cars parked half on the pavement half on the road on both sides of the street>

      Do they have to be 100% perfect in every single situation ever devised before we use them?

      Consider for a minute that humans have the same issues, and aren't that good at it either. :)

    28. Re: Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big families in big vehicles use less fuel per person than you do. Just a thought ...

      And one dick head alone in an over sized penis compensation device uses far far more. Just the more common occurrence.

    29. Re: Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by dave420 · · Score: 1

      If you want fun, go have it in a place where people who are merely trying to get on with their lives are not endangered by it. Your fun is an artefact of driving, not the reason why people drive. Cars are a mode of transport. You finding fun in driving one is akin to a foot fetishist at the shoe store - the shoe store serves a distinct purpose, yet the fetishist derives pleasure for a different reason. I appreciate you having fun, but to insist on endangering others simply for your fun is, well, hideously selfish.

    30. Re:Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      The second and third laws are the wrong way round.

      I don't want my expensive robot or self driving car to damage itself just because I wasn't clear enough in my instructions.

    31. Re: Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      Sex.. i'm surprised i'm the first one to put this in the replies... or am i?

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    32. Re: Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      If you want fun, go have it in a place where people who are merely trying to get on with their lives are not endangered by it. Your fun is an artefact of driving, not the reason why people drive. Cars are a mode of transport. You finding fun in driving one is akin to a foot fetishist at the shoe store - the shoe store serves a distinct purpose, yet the fetishist derives pleasure for a different reason. I appreciate you having fun, but to insist on endangering others simply for your fun is, well, hideously selfish.

      Why do you automatically make the assumption that my fun driving endangers others?

      I drive what is safe for each given road environment and conditions at the time. I also have a performance vehicle that starts and stops better than most cars, so I have the ability to actually be safer in traffic than most cars.

      The times I drive fast, are generally when there is no other traffic around me, and conditions warrant it to be safe to do so, given my vehicle.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    33. Re: Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The zeroth law: A self-driving car must not harm humanity. The first law is therefore rewritten as: A self-driving car may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, unless this conflicts with the zeroth law.

    34. Re:Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Two million miles on a specially designed test track that lacks:
      1. actual pedestrians (just cardboard cutouts)
      2. weather other than sunny and warm
      3. conditions other than daylight
      4. other drivers who are dangerous jerks.

      When a self-driving car can pass an actual driver's test, in all weathers and all traffic conditions, I will be impressed. Until then, it's all hype.

    35. Re:Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      A few square miles of known streets that have been rigourously scanned and mapped. That is not the same as what the rest of us experience. It is still illegal to operate them in an uncontrolled manner on a public road, so I can't see how a true "uncontrolled" test is possible.

    36. Re:Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Probably also worth noting that I'm yet to hear of any test done in anything other than perfect weather. And I've since found out that Google has a policy of not testing on rail crossings or roundabouts. Hard to see how that qualifies as "uncontrolled".

    37. Re:Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Um, I hate to break it to you, but their cars have been driving on public streets for years now.

      How else have they been hit 14 times? 11 of which they were rear ended by human drivers who weren't paying attention.

    38. Re:Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      You think they have driven 2 million miles on a "few square miles" of streets?

      They could have stopped that a long time ago, they have gotten permits to drive them in several public places, and all the scanning and mapping in the world does nothing for dealing with human drivers around them.

      What is so sad is that this is supposed to be a tech web site, and what we have is a bunch of people afraid of technology.

    39. Re:Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 2

      You think they have driven 2 million miles on a "few square miles" of streets?

      Yes. Because up until a few months ago ALL testing was done on private test tracks. Most of the 2 million miles was not on public streets.

      They could have stopped that a long time ago, they have gotten permits to drive them in several public places, and all the scanning and mapping in the world does nothing for dealing with human drivers around them.

      The vast majority of the small amount miles done on public roads have all be done in Mountain View, on sunny days, only under certain conditions (ie no railway crossings, no roundabouts, no unsealed roads etc etc with operators who take over when the AI freaks out. The latest incarnation of Google robot car, ie the one designed for public street testing, is speed limited to 25mph.
      ie All testing so far has been under controlled circumstances.

      What is so sad is that this is supposed to be a tech web site, and what we have is a bunch of people afraid of technology.

      As a Tech person I consider it my job to sort the real data from the marketing material. The really sad part is that not all of us so-called techies seem able to demonstrate similar skills.

    40. Re: Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by hucker75 · · Score: 1

      30mpg is terrible. You can get cars that get 70 or 80.

    41. Re: Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by hucker75 · · Score: 1

      Oh no, who let that health and softy person in here?

    42. Re: Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Controlling people who love taking the fun out of life for everyone. Every time I see a comment like this it makes me want to drive even more

    43. Re: Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And here we see a living example of the rise of people who want to use laws as a weapon to force you to live how they want you to live.

    44. Re: Three Laws of Self-Driving Cars by Nehmo · · Score: 1

      Sex...

      Jack Griffin covered that when he noted higher physical activity causes greater CO2 production . Plus, to be realistic, the preparatory activities, like showing-off a GMC Sierra for masculine competition, or flying the girl to you from Bangkok to America, would have consequences in terms of CO2 production.

      Also, if sex causes you to reproduce, that is, produce more people, it could have catastrophic CO2 consequences.

      I'm being facetious. But if you want to be thorough, yes, almost every activity of a human in the modern world produces CO2. If electricity were made using nuclear energy or something "renewable", that wouldn't be the case.

      --
      (||) Nehmo (||)
  2. "Mimic the act of driving"? by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This actually reminds me of the Red Flag Laws that were passed when automobiles first began appearing. Because, obviously, the most important thing for an automobile is to avoid spooking the livestock, er, human drivers for whom the roads are really intended.

    I hope I live to see the day when driving manually on a public road is viewed the same way as herding livestock or riding a horse on a public road -- quaint and interesting, but mostly disruptive, and almost never actually done.

    1. Re:"Mimic the act of driving"? by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I want to know when old-fashioned human drivers will be held to the same driving standards as the ones proposed in that document.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:"Mimic the act of driving"? by siphonophore · · Score: 1

      Any time a government gets involved with predicting the future, they get it embarrassingly wrong. Every one of these guides reads like the following: "We support self driving cars, so here is the exact product everyone must release and the one path to market that everyone must take." So the consumer gets the 5 year old scripted vision of non technical bureaucrats on a power trip. Innovation in the sector slows to utility-pace. When an industry manages to escape this yoke (e.g. mobile), the pace of innovation is dizzying expressly because the future is unscripted and the path there is allowed to be messy.

      --
      Dance like you're hurt, Love like you need money, and work when somebody's watching.
      -Scott Adams
    3. Re:"Mimic the act of driving"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear Hear. I can't wait for the day the options packages for a typical luxury sedan feature an entertainment center, recliner and wet bar.
      For the busy exec, you can have the "mobile office package"

    4. Re: "Mimic the act of driving"? by jpapon · · Score: 2

      Yes, government can't predict the future. Neither can anyone else. We also can't have unregulated self driving cars on public roads either.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    5. Re:"Mimic the act of driving"? by Firethorn · · Score: 0

      One can hope that it follows the same trend as the red flag laws - as the technology is validated the restrictions will drop one by one.

      As is, I've already reached the point where every time I read about another car accident I think that self driving cars can't come fast enough.

      Just the accident avoidance stuff alone...

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    6. Re: "Mimic the act of driving"? by siphonophore · · Score: 1

      Yes, government can't predict the future. Neither can anyone else.

      When a non-gov't predicts wrong, he loses. When a gov't predicts wrong, it holds back tech by a decade. Gov't should know this and approach these things with some caution and humility.

      We also can't have unregulated self driving cars on public roads either.

      This would be better than wrong regulation. No regulation means that each car company is exposed to civil liabilities and brand damage, which is all the incentive they need to keep things pretty safe. If I were a dictator, I would wait and see and only write laws to stop real live problems that arise or to mandate good practices already in place by some vendors.

      You're in tech, I assume. I also assume that your current project has competitors and your solution has some differentiating aspects. What if, one day, your state government decides the competitor's solution is better and proscribes all differentiating aspects. That is exactly what's happening here: no market experimentation is allowed for things like "no steering wheel" or "dashboard footrests". Why? Because, in the imagination of several nontechnical bureaucrats, these things may cause problems some day.

      Let me repeat myself, technical innovation for driverless cars in 2025 will be restricted by the imagination of a few nontechnical bureaucrats in 2015.

      Let me repeat myself, technical innovation for driverless cars in 2025 will be restricted by the imagination of a few nontechnical bureaucrats in 2015.

      Does that sound bad yet?

      --
      Dance like you're hurt, Love like you need money, and work when somebody's watching.
      -Scott Adams
    7. Re: "Mimic the act of driving"? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2
      Actually, there is a way to have these kinds of issues covered outside of both the tradiational public and private sectors. From the evil overlord list.

      12. One of my advisors will be an average five-year-old child. Any flaws in my plan that he is able to spot will be corrected before implementation.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    8. Re:"Mimic the act of driving"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the original PDF - the word "mimic" did not appear in it.

    9. Re: "Mimic the act of driving"? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      We also can't have unregulated self driving cars on public roads either.

      False dilemma. No regulations, and stupid regulations are not the only two alternatives. A third alternative would be to have sensible regulations, that require a licensed driver be ready to take over in an emergency, but don't require that driver to pretend to be driving.

    10. Re:"Mimic the act of driving"? by wasteoid · · Score: 2

      And I thought our current legislators are brainless:

      "(1) immediately stop the vehicle, (2) immediately and as rapidly as possible... disassemble the automobile, and (3) conceal the various components out of sight, behind nearby bushes until equestrian or livestock is sufficiently pacified"

    11. Re: "Mimic the act of driving"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When a non-gov't predicts wrong, he loses.

      And possibly thousands, if not millions of others may lose.

      Even if they had no involvement through conscious choice of their own.

      A lot of accidents can be explained with a simple remark that somebody never thought that could happen.

      Tto a certain extent, complete avoidance of that risk is impossible. But mitigation is worth doing.

    12. Re: "Mimic the act of driving"? by AgNO3 · · Score: 1

      And anyone who likes driving will hope that day never comes. Sure self driving but eliminating driving. No thanks.

      --
      OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink :-(
    13. Re: "Mimic the act of driving"? by jpapon · · Score: 1

      This would be better than wrong regulation. No regulation means that each car company is exposed to civil liabilities and brand damage, which is all the incentive they need to keep things pretty safe.

      You could make exactly the same argument with respect to human drivers and driver's licenses - that you don't need licenses because each person is exposed to civil liabilities and has a personal reputation. Yet we still require humans to be licensed to drive, and that's when we know the failure modes very well. We have no idea what the failure modes might be for some new algorithm. We can't just release them into the wild all willy-nilly and hope for the best.

      Yes, regulation slows progress to a degree. That's fine - it is both a feature and a bug. Self driving cars don't need to be here tomorrow. Why not take our time and do it right, rather than rush it and run the risk of deploying the technology before it's ready?

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    14. Re: "Mimic the act of driving"? by jpapon · · Score: 1

      I agree the "pretend to be driving" bit is ridiculous, and I doubt that part will last or be enforced. It makes much more sense to just have the car clearly labeled as a self driving car on the outside, just like student drivers.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    15. Re:"Mimic the act of driving"? by rkww · · Score: 2

      I don't know where you live, but where I live, 20 miles north of London, there are a multitude of stables and I frequently encounter riders on local lanes (where the speed limit is 60 mph.) And Spooking the Livestock can be Very Bad Indeed. Hence the new Code of Practice says 'Particular consideration should be given to the concerns of more vulnerable road users including disabled people, those with visual or hearing impairments, pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, children and horse riders. '

    16. Re:"Mimic the act of driving"? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      When an industry manages to escape this yoke (e.g. mobile), the pace of innovation is dizzying expressly because the future is unscripted and the path there is allowed to be messy.

      Bad example. During the GSM era, Europe was way ahead for the USA in mobile telephony. Because governments were involved in standardising GSM in the European market, but in the USA the free market introduced many incompatible standards. It wasn't until Europe picked up on the free market fever, and governments stopped taking the lead, that Europe mobile telephony slowed down and the USA caught up.

    17. Re: "Mimic the act of driving"? by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

      In the car safety too, Europe has generally been ahead of America. Things like mandating seat belts, air bags, crash tests. Regulation is vital for road going vehicles.

      We never had an Edsel.

    18. Re: "Mimic the act of driving"? by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Informative

      They are perfectly sensible regulations.

      but don't require that driver to pretend to be driving.

      The regulations don't say that. They say precisely this:
      "Test drivers and operators should be conscious of their appearance to other road users, for example continuing to maintain gaze directions appropriate for normal driving."

      It's a perfectly reasonable requirement. A "driver" not looking where the car is going, or doing some other bizarre action would distract and alarm other road users. And such distraction could cause an accident.

      Note also that these are not rules for production autonomous vehicles, when the public might be more aware of what's going on. They are for test-drivers, at a time when many people won't be aware of the tests.

      As usual the real stupidity is in the Slashdot summary and the knee-jerk reaction of some posters.

    19. Re:"Mimic the act of driving"? by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

      One can hope that it follows the same trend as the red flag laws - as the technology is validated the restrictions will drop one by one.

      Exactly. The red flag was a perfectly reasonable precaution when cars were entirely experimental and unpredictable, and the public were unaware of them. When they were not needed the restriction was removed.

      These rules are for test-drivers. They are not rules intended for use of production autonomous vehicles.

    20. Re:"Mimic the act of driving"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This isn't about how self-driving cars should work - this is about how self-driving cars should be permitted to be tested on public roads before their full approval. And basically, it all adds up to "you have to have someone able to take control in case your self-driving car doesn't respond correctly to an emergency condition, and you have to have good diagnostics so if your self-driving car is involved in an accident on the public roads, we can see what it did."

    21. Re: "Mimic the act of driving"? by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

      My grandfather was killed by a a drunken driver, that presumably liked to drive.. As soon as autonomous cars can fulfil the role, and are safer than human drivers, bring them on. Make manual driving a thing of the past. Leave it as a thing to be done on track days.

    22. Re: "Mimic the act of driving"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Marketing failures? Europe has had loads of those in the automotive industry.

      Technology wise, self adjusting rear brakes and steering wheel gear shifting is hardly unknown today.

    23. Re: "Mimic the act of driving"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More importantly you never had the Pinto.

    24. Re: "Mimic the act of driving"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [quote]That is exactly what's happening here: no market experimentation is allowed for things like "no steering wheel" or "dashboard footrests".[/quote]

      Not at all. There's nothing to say that those things shouldn't be allowed in products, and those things are relatively trivial cosmetic features. These rules are intended to govern an initial testing period, for the autonomous systems. The functioning of an autonomous car is not affected by whether or not it has a steering wheel, footrest, or coffee table.

      But during this initial testing phase (ie. before production autonomous cars have been approved), you must be able to override the car and take control, and you have to look like a person driving a car so as not to cause surprise (and possible accidents) in other road users.

    25. Re: "Mimic the act of driving"? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      There are lots of things I like to do, but I realize that allowing other people to do them impedes on my enjoyment of life more than abstaining from them personally. I like driving, there are clear benefits for everyone that outweigh my personal enjoyment of driving. Reduction of traffic jams and collisions will shorten average transit times immediately, and after a few years of proven safety and effectiveness, we could easily eliminate hard speed limits on driverless freeways. People can do the things they're *already doing* in cars without the risks and consequences to me. No more asshole or idiot-induced road rage. No more getting cut off. No more people failing to merge properly. No more worrying about getting randomly pulled over for frivolous or judgment-based violations (he looked like he was swerving in his lane). Travel by vehicle could be the life improvement it was meant to be instead of the blood-pressure spiking experience it is today. Get off work, crack a beer, jump in the car, and watch my DVR. That would be a great reality.

    26. Re: "Mimic the act of driving"? by Khashishi · · Score: 2

      You talk about civil liabilities and brand damage to the car company, but actually what that means is that people will die, and the company will calculate how much brand damage is acceptable.

    27. Re: "Mimic the act of driving"? by AgNO3 · · Score: 1

      why do you need an individual car? You do realize that pretty much they have said it a long way out for driverless cars being main stream. like 20-30 years. Thats just MIT though what do they know.

      --
      OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink :-(
    28. Re: "Mimic the act of driving"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've only really noticed what a few people are doing while driving, when I'm driving. One woman was picking her nose and eating it while tailgating me.

      Classy.

      I have noticed plenty of drivers doing stuff while I'm walking, though. I saw one woman putting on making, while using the steering wheel as a lever to hold herself up off the floor, while speeding downhill on a frosty winter's morning.

      I've seen two women reading while driving in heavy traffic. I couldn't believe it. One was reading a large, thick book and the other was reading what appeared to be a notebook.

      Just before it was illegal, I did see a younger male (around age 20+-) driving while sending a text message on his phone. He was bolting along the motorway at 120 (limit is 100kph), wavering between lanes. He put two wheels off-road, drove for about 2 seconds like that, wrenched the wheel to get back into the passing lane and then accelerated heavily. As he passed me, he was still texting, cut into the lane in front of me, then wobbled back into the overtaking lane. Must have been doing 130 when he disappeared.

      That said, in my experience as a pedestrian, it's mostly women who text and drive - but this is meaningless for anything other than what I saw. I'm only on or near roads for 40 minutes a day at the most, and most of that time is spent waiting at intersections, watching young males (and older females) floor it to get through red lights before anybody notices that the lights have changed.

    29. Re: "Mimic the act of driving"? by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

      I don't think we'll ever see driving forbidden. It might be restricted to certain roads, maybe even private/closed courses. Or it might be subject to mandatory automated overrides in case the driver tries to do something stupid -- yes, the reverse of the current situation, where laws may require a human operator remain ready to take over in case the machine does something stupid.

      I understand that driving can be fun. But do you really want to keep trying to eke out your enjoyment on roads mostly full of people who don't care much about driving, who may be exhausted, drunk or distracted, or who just plain aren't very good at driving on their best days?

    30. Re: "Mimic the act of driving"? by siphonophore · · Score: 1

      There are lots of reasons to hasten the wide adoption of driverless cars:

      1. Climate change: driverless cars mean no range anxiety and focus on per-mile costs: perfect for electric cars
      2. Human-caused traffic fatalities: lots. even a rushed and buggy algorithm saves hundreds of lives per day.

      Smart regulation, operator licenses, et al make a lot of sense and it's very tempting to say they should be implemented with our best guesses at the moment. But considering that (a) there have been zero algorithm-caused problems, and (b) there are immense and immediate benefits to implementation, why not let things develop hands off and only intervene when there is a real, live, actual, non-imaginary, in-the-field problem?

      --
      Dance like you're hurt, Love like you need money, and work when somebody's watching.
      -Scott Adams
    31. Re: "Mimic the act of driving"? by siphonophore · · Score: 1

      I agree that such a statute is pretty sensible. But let's explore that a little.

      Say Google has 100 cars and wants to move as fast as possible. Humans only want to work first shift and need breaks every few hours. So these prototypes get tested for around 6 hours per day, when the potential is that they can be tested 24 hours per day. With a simple, sensible statute, you've reduced the testing capability by 75%. And for what purpose? Google's cars have never caused an accident or injury, so any problem is by definition imagined.

      You just cut the rate of testing by 75% because of an imagined problem. I say that is unjustified.

      --
      Dance like you're hurt, Love like you need money, and work when somebody's watching.
      -Scott Adams
    32. Re:"Mimic the act of driving"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope I live to see the day when driving manually on a public road is viewed the same way as herding livestock or riding a horse on a public road -- quaint and interesting, but mostly disruptive, and almost never actually done.

      I've seen plenty of livestock herded along public roads in rural Wales and Cumbria, and we get quite a lot of horses on minor roads round here too.

    33. Re: "Mimic the act of driving"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they had worse: Reliant's Regal, Robin and other trike-autos. I lived in England during the 80s and used to see those Reliant pieces of shit zipping through the roundabouts and nearly tipping over.

    34. Re: "Mimic the act of driving"? by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      perhaps you only watch women drivers...

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    35. Re: "Mimic the act of driving"? by AgNO3 · · Score: 1

      Yes because everyone wants a performance self driving car. There are easily enough car enthusiasts while a minority to make mandated self driving unlikely.

      --
      OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink :-(
  3. mimic the act of driving by frovingslosh · · Score: 2

    Assuming that mimic the act of driving doesn't mean putting on makeup, shaving or brushing your teeth (no, I didn't RTFA but this is the UK so I think I'm pretty safe in thinking it does not mean brushing your teeth), then doesn't this pretty much defeat the whole idea of having a self driving car? I guess it might still allow the use of a self driving car by someone physically unable to drive for himself, but personally I would rather have a driver who is capable of taking over and driving if the need presents itself than a pretender who acts like they can drive but can't really.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:mimic the act of driving by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      Ideally, a self-driving car should only need a user to take over in the case of catastrophic failure, but it should also have safeguards in place so that if it fails some sanity checks it has another system that can at least bring the vehicle to a safe stop.

      Having a system that relies on a sudden hand-off to a human is asking for trouble. As you mention, the point of having a self-driving car is so that you don't have to drive so there's no way that you'll get people to give their full attention to the car. Expecting a person to be able to take immediate control is not going to work and it should probably be impossible for a user to take control unless they first stop the vehicle and change it to a manual setting.

      Outside of complete system failure or a complete loss of sensor data, there aren't a lot of cases where a computer wouldn't be able to do a better job than a person at handling an accident. Even if the vehicle is side-swiped by another driver, the computer will be able to a better job of recovering from the accident without causing further problems.

    2. Re:mimic the act of driving by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Exactly. Self cars need to be 100% self driving, or they're utterly useless.

      You can't have a failure mode where it says "OK, meat sock, I have no idea what to do, it's your turn and you have 0.7 seconds to react". That will simply not work.

      That would be idiotic and dangerous, and mean that self-driving cars are mostly here but have huge gaps in what they can do.

      But it should be like a cab, with the passengers being exactly that ... passengers.

      To me, a self-driving car remains a proof of concept if there is ever a mode in which the user needs to take over, the user even has control they could use, or if the user pays for liability insurance as a "driver".

      If Google wants to have self-driving cars, they should be like taxi cabs, and they should have their own liability. This hybrid model is doomed to fail.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:mimic the act of driving by Firethorn · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Self cars need to be 100% self driving, or they're utterly useless.

      I wouldn't go that far. What I would say is that it should be overwhelmingly capable of bringing the car to a safe halt in case of a failure. It doesn't need to be able to navigate a chaotic construction zone(IE where the machines are operating, delivering supplies, as opposed to navigating traffic diversions) or go 'offroading'. It simply needs to be able to get 99% of people from point A to point B safely.

      I will agree that a sudden 'I can't handle this!' handoff to the driver of the vehicle would be a critical failure.

      Pulling to the side of the road and beeping at the driver to indicate that it doesn't know how to proceed may be a procedural failure, but as long as it doesn't hit anything or cause damage to anything, including itself, it's not a critical failure.

      If Google wants to have self-driving cars, they should be like taxi cabs, and they should have their own liability. This hybrid model is doomed to fail.

      I wouldn't call it doomed, but with self-driving vehicles the Taxi model becomes a lot more economical. I still think that large numbers of people would want to own their own vehicle though. The owner buying damage/theft insurance while the manufacturer picks up liability is a very real possibility.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    4. Re:mimic the act of driving by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      My guess is that self-driving car systems will be introduced gradually. You'll have "highway mode" self-driving cars where the self-driving system would be an enhanced cruise control. You go on the highway, hit the "self drive" button, and then sit back and relax until your exit nears. The next step would be to take over some stop-and-go city driving (likely used in good weather just like you wouldn't hit "cruise control" now if it was snowing out). Finally, computers would control all car movements after you input your destination and there will be no need for you to take control.

      This will let manufactuers perfect their self-driving car systems and get the public* used to seeing people sitting back with their hands off the wheels.

      * Public and police officers. Imagine if a highway officer saw a car go by today without a person's hands on the wheels. Even if the car was going the speed limit, it would likely be pulled over until the officer knew that this car was self-driving.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    5. Re:mimic the act of driving by ic3m4n1 · · Score: 1

      If mimicking is to prevent other drivers from getting confused, maybe we can have an Android powered by Android Auto (TM). Who can keep other drivers sane while at the same time also entertain fellow passengers.

    6. Re:mimic the act of driving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, this almost exactly mimics rules for autopilots for airplanes. This will be great for reducing fatigue for drivers on long days, and, well, the technology isn't there for a completely automated machine. Would you rather have the 95% solution now or the 100% solution sometime in the mythical future.

    7. Re: mimic the act of driving by lostinbrave · · Score: 1

      People often place their hands on the bottom of the wheel where they are not visible but are rarely pulled over.

    8. Re: mimic the act of driving by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      True, but if your hands are in plain sight and not on the wheel (e.g. folded behind your head as you relax), you're likely to be pulled over. I can see self-driving car users being pulled over initially for not paying attention to the road when their car was doing the driving. Not that I blame the officers (or envy the judgement call they'll need to make). The introduction of self-driving cars will mean police officers will need additional training to tell when to pull someone over for not paying attention (non-self-driving car owner) and when not to (self-driving car owner with self-driving activated).

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    9. Re:mimic the act of driving by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Imagine if a highway officer saw a car go by today without a person's hands on the wheels. Even if the car was going the speed limit, it would likely be pulled over until the officer knew that this car was self-driving.

      I suppose it's possible that a cop might get excited about seeing a car go by without a person's handson the wheel. It must be noted, however, that a fair number of drivers of cars with power steering drive with one hand on the bottom of the steering wheel (and thus completely out of sight to passersby). Cops aren't stopping those people (these people, I should say, since I'm one of them on the Interstates, at least), so I suspect that the issue isn't as signifcant as you suggest....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    10. Re:mimic the act of driving by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      doesn't this pretty much defeat the whole idea of having a self driving car?

      These are rules for test-drivers whilst autonomous cars are under development. They are not rules for drivers of production cars.

    11. Re:mimic the act of driving by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      A self-driving car should *never* need a user to take over. The car should come to an immediate stop, like elevator brakes. This should be no more difficult than providing a dedicated, redundant lane-detection system and steering control, as exists in some vehicles today. Of course, elevators still fall, and car accidents will still happen, and that's unfortunate, but car accidents will be so rare that they will make the national news, unlike the 40,000 traffic fatalities we have every year. And when they happen, we will all shudder in horror for a minute before going back to life as usual.

    12. Re:mimic the act of driving by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      A self-driving car should *never* need a user to take over. The car should come to an immediate stop, like elevator brakes

      I think I'd prefer that the car come to a stop outside of the traffic lane, but safely. But yes, if something has failed, I want a tow truck to be a legitimate next step, not the user taking over in what's probably a chaotic situation.

      Especially once they've been operating driverless cars enough that the users are no longer skilled drivers.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    13. Re:mimic the act of driving by Macdude · · Score: 1

      You can't have a failure mode where it says "OK, meat sock, I have no idea what to do, it's your turn and you have 0.7 seconds to react". That will simply not work.

      What in the world makes you think they would have such a failure mode?

      Why would they do that when they can have it start alerting the driver when it "sees" something ahead that it doesn't grok allowing the meat sock to take control at it's discretion and if it doesn't, bring the vehicle to a safe and orderly stop until the source of the confusion can be sorted out.

      This idea that the system would just stop functioning, without warning, anytime it gets confused is the fevered wet-dream of luddites.

      --
      "Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
    14. Re:mimic the act of driving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Google wants to have self-driving cars, they should be like taxi cabs, and they should have their own liability. This hybrid model is doomed to fail.

      The most sensible model is for the liability to rest with the owner, who would still be required to purchase insurance against damage caused by incorrect functioning or failure of his vehicle. This is little different to how a company can buy insurance allowing any employee to drive a company vehicle, except here the vehicle itself is doing the driving. Just as a company vehicle can carry passengers (e.g. an employee is driving himself plus a colleague to another site) the autonomous car could carry passengers. The owner wouldn't need to be in the car for it to be insured, just as the company's MD doesn't need to be in the company vehicle for the insurance to be valid. That way the owner could use it, their spouse could use it or they could remotely command it to go and collect the kids from school and take them home.

      But note that none of that is relevant in the context of this document, which is talking about testing partly proven vehicles on the public road. In that situation of course you need a test driver and emergency controls, even if the final production model would have those controls removed. A successful test would involve the test driver sitting back and not touching the controls, but until completion of testing the autonomous capabilities a human driver would of course be required.

  4. Strangling Innovation Much? by siphonophore · · Score: 0

    UK gov't 1910: Ok, you can have a horseless carriage, but you have to keep the horses so as not to confuse other drivers. Also, only mechanics can drive them. Good governance is to wait for problems before applying solutions. Bad governance is to let no nothing bureaucrats exercise their inner petty fascist.

    --
    Dance like you're hurt, Love like you need money, and work when somebody's watching.
    -Scott Adams
    1. Re:Strangling Innovation Much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Must be.. that's why we're still riding horses, oh and we have some of the best road safety in the world. We'll be just fine. Fascists, wow.

    2. Re:Strangling Innovation Much? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I find it helps to think of it like a medical trial of a new medicine with vast potential.
      First you have private trials (test track stuff).
      Then you have limited public trials (google's and other's cars), where the participants are heavily monitored and screened.
      Then the trials become more and more general release - the drug becomes prescription.
      Then, if the medicine is finally deemed safe enough, it becomes over the counter.

      Despite the many hours put in by various companies on their cars, when you start increasing that by orders of magnitude and get rid of the professional drivers*, you're sure to encounter situations the companies never thought of.

      The current restrictions aren't meant to be final restrictions. They're restrictions meant for the trial of a radical new component into a system where failure can and does cost lives on a regular basis. Yes, the new component is supposed to reduce the number of lives cost, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have to be validated.

      *Who, in Google's case, already have a worse driving record. In one case putting the car into override only to drive it into having an accident by rear-ending a car the autopilot was slowing to avoid hitting.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    3. Re:Strangling Innovation Much? by siphonophore · · Score: 1

      I think scaling this one will be painfully slow already. You have cost, technical, safety, and market obstacles all dragging down implementation. The best way to solve those problems is to iterate quickly and not get locked into a solution early by a (temporary or not) regulatory environment.

      --
      Dance like you're hurt, Love like you need money, and work when somebody's watching.
      -Scott Adams
    4. Re:Strangling Innovation Much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're being reasonable, rather than coming across as a clueless, paranoid, anti-government teenager or arrested-development-case. Maybe Slashdot isn't for you.

    5. Re:Strangling Innovation Much? by BasilBrush · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your libertarian beliefs are at the full on insane level. They have long since parted with any resemblance to reality.

      Good governance on dangerous new technology is precautionary. You don't wait till people are killed to create regulations. You regulate first, then ease off the regulations as safety is demonstrated.

    6. Re:Strangling Innovation Much? by siphonophore · · Score: 1

      Dangerous. You keep using that word. I don't believe it means what you think it means.

      You regulate first, then ease off the regulations as safety is demonstrated.
      I could not disagree any more strongly. You let people and businesses exercise freedom and intervene if and when there is a problem. Consider that EVERY new innovation has safety implications. Broadly applied, this mentality would seize the works entirely.

      --
      Dance like you're hurt, Love like you need money, and work when somebody's watching.
      -Scott Adams
    7. Re:Strangling Innovation Much? by siphonophore · · Score: 1

      Also, I believe we should think about it more like a fast-track trial for a terminal disease. Driverless cars would save hundreds per day (even if they're buggy) and cut CO2 emissions to sustainable levels (no range anxiety and a focus on per-mile costs make electric cars the obvious choice).

      Fast track for terminal cases? Let's get a little risky.

      --
      Dance like you're hurt, Love like you need money, and work when somebody's watching.
      -Scott Adams
    8. Re:Strangling Innovation Much? by siphonophore · · Score: 2

      Have you ever made rules that other people have to follow? feelsgoodman.jpg

      Most people have an inner fascist. Fortunately there are HOAs and school boards to satisfy them before they become the next Hitler.

      --
      Dance like you're hurt, Love like you need money, and work when somebody's watching.
      -Scott Adams
    9. Re:Strangling Innovation Much? by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      Dangerous. You keep using that word. I don't believe it means what you think it means.

      That's another thing you're wrong about then. Dangerous means exactly what I think it does. Cars can and do kill people. Cars have design defects that can and do kill people. Autonomous cars are new technology that is very likely to have design defects.

      Consider that EVERY new innovation has safety implications.

      And to the level that new innovations have safety implications they should be and are regulated.

      You have an irrational belief that companies will do the right thing in the absence of regulations. History shows you are wrong. Regulations came about, despite plenty of resistance, because businesses kept on killing people unnecessarily. For example the Bradford Poisoner case, where where due to padding out foodstuffs with cheap filler (in an analogous way to how drugs are cut) and bad working practice at a pharmacy, 21 people were killed by eating humbugs (a type of candy). It's because of such cases that businesses are regulated.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Broadly applied, this mentality would seize the works entirely.

      It is broadly applied, and the works are not seized. Therefore you are wrong.

    10. Re:Strangling Innovation Much? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Part of the problem is that not even the companies producing the auto-drive systems think that they're ready for general release. So there's still a lot of development to be done.

      We are seeing some trickle down in this - cars that will automatically apply the brake to prevent hitting something(as fast), lane following, etc...

      UK's rules are no real problem for the developing companies because they're still at the point that the rules don't really limit them. Heck, the developing companies probably helped write the rules!

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  5. Mimic the act of driving? by TheCreeep · · Score: 1

    Can I just use the steering wheel as a controller while playing Need for Speed?

  6. Up to date by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 4, Funny

    and — most notably — will have to mimic the act of driving, to avoid confusing other drivers

    "When an automobile approaches an intersection, the driver shall exit the automobile and stand in the intersection waving a lit lantern for 30 seconds, looking down each road, and blowing a loud horn, all so as to alert gentlemen on horses and peaceful ladies that they not be startled.

    "Once this is done and the road clear, the automobile may be walked through the intersection. After the automobile is through, the driver shall remove his overcoat, jacket, shirt, and that thing that always flips up in Curly's face, and beat pennance into his own back with a switch of not less than 10 thorns or a whip of not less than three tails."

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  7. Wait, what? by gstoddart · · Score: 2

    Do they really think anybody is going to have a "high level knowledge of the technology"? There's no way in hell Google is going to let anybody product engineers know any of the details, so unless they mean "the computer, it does the driving bits" there isn't a damned thing people will know.

    And the sitting there pretending to drive? Well, that's what happens when clueless lawmakers try to pass laws about technology they don't remotely understand.

    But, whatever, the flying^Wself-driving car isn't something which will catch on in any meaningful sense of the word ... people aren't going to buy these because they don't care, or because the benefits will be very limited.

    Like so many things the futurists tell us are coming Real Soon Now, the world isn't going to be re-tooled to account for this, and they will have to coexist with human drivers for a VERY long time to come. But if they think society is going to spend billions and billions of dollars changing the existing infrastructure to suit their pipedream, they're delusional.

    But, hey, that's what futurists are for. Telling us about stuff which sounds cool but which are otherwise not likely to happen as claimed.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Wait, what? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      As they say, you can tell how old a law is by how well it's written. Modern law is really lousy, and this includes England.

      I figure that the 'high level knowledge' means that they have enough knowledge of the system in order to be able to tell when it's operating outside of specifications, thus knowing to take over. Indeed, that's why it says they must be practiced in taking over.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    2. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do they really think anybody is going to have a "high level knowledge of the technology"? There's no way in hell Google is going to let anybody product engineers know any of the details, so unless they mean "the computer, it does the driving bits" there isn't a damned thing people will know.

      It's obviously intended to allow the companies to put the cars onto the roads for beta testing, not for actual general sale. So it will be their engineers doing the driving. I'd expect this law to be updated in a couple of years once sufficient time and mileage has passed that they can say the cars are safe for general use.

      And the sitting there pretending to drive? Well, that's what happens when clueless lawmakers try to pass laws about technology they don't remotely understand.

      Given that the cars won't yet be on general sale, seeing a car with no-one in the front two seats would definitely make most people look at the car, completely distracting them from what's in front of them. I certainly would fine no-one in the front distracting and unnerving. We already have plenty of accidents from people looking at other accidents as they drive past them and driving straight into the stopped car in front of them as a result. I can see the value in this. Unlike the red flag laws where the cars were only going at jogging pace so you could get out of the way easily, a modern car could be doing 70mph when the driver gets distracted.

      To me they do actually sound sane, providing you realise they're rules governing a beta test and not rules governing the general public owning one. New laws will be written before that happens.

    3. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For some people, a "high level knowledge of the technology" may constitute being able to apply a bold face to text or spell-check a document in a word processor. That is such an ambiguous requirement, since that means different things to different people.

    4. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe it's just for the trials, rather than for every driver who'll ever drive it. You know, the obvious intent.

    5. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do they really think anybody is going to have a "high level knowledge of the technology"? There's no way in hell Google is going to let anybody product engineers know any of the details, so unless they mean "the computer, it does the driving bits" there isn't a damned thing people will know.

      As someone further up pointed out, these are the test driver requirements, not the production. So read this as "you can't just shove an intern in there who doesn't know the abort code to stop the Googletron from transforming into a killer death robot".

  8. I think I can make an educated guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    List of rules:

    1.) GPS location must be sent to government monitoring centre at all times.
    2.) So must the identities of the driver and any passengers via facial recognition.
    3.) Interior cameras will constantly stream live audio and video of passenger conversations to the government (even when the car isn't running). ...

  9. mimic Simpsons or driving? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can my child do the mimic part?

  10. Re:Self-driving cars are for cows. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's cute how you think you're an iconoclast.

  11. Mimicing by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 2

    The whole point of getting a self-driving car is so I can be doing other things other than driving a car. If I have to mimic driving then what's the point since I won't be able to do those other things.

    1. Re:Mimicing by PPH · · Score: 1

      So, if I juggle my iPhone, a cheeseburger and a cigarette while my car is driving itself, for all intents and purposes I am mimicking the majority of other drivers. On the other hand, looking ahead with two hands on the wheel could freak them out.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Mimicing by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      As an AC put it, these rules are 'obviously intended to allow the companies to put the cars onto the roads for beta testing, not for actual general sale'.

      Once companies pile on enough miles to show that the engineers/professional drivers aren't necessary, the systems can see more general release.

      Personally, at least in the USA I see shoving all the DUI and other people with revoked licenses into a self-driving car rather than messing with breath-testing interlocks once they reach a certain point.

      After that, you'll see the rich people taking them for the convenience, the kids of rich/wealthy parents getting them for the safety, and it'll trickle on down, especially with insurance breaks for such vehicles. Insurance at 1/3rd the price would pay for a good deal of auto-drive equipment, after all.

      Once it becomes 'standard' for new 'drivers' to use self-driving cars, I predict 'all' cars will become self-driving much like how automatic transmissions took over for manuals in the USA, but more rapidly.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    3. Re:Mimicing by Your.Master · · Score: 2

      I think the whole point of this law is to legalize further development in the UK.

      I don't actually think this is a terrible idea, for now. In the future we'll need to be rid of this, but until self-driving cars are consumer-ready we need a transitional state that still maintains public safety but allows for real-world development. Hence, you get somebody who knows the limitations of a self-driving car in the driver's seat, and you have him assimilate as closely as possible with human drivers.

    4. Re:Mimicing by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      So, if I juggle my iPhone, a cheeseburger and a cigarette while my car is driving itself, for all intents and purposes I am mimicking the majority of other drivers.

      You forgot keeping an opened, cold beer between your legs while doing this too.

      :)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    5. Re:Mimicing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point of this proposal is to "get the cars onto the road". This "mimicry" is required until a plurality of people have got used to the idea - which, I'm sure everyone is hoping and assuming, will happen within 2-3 years. Then it'll no longer be required.

    6. Re:Mimicing by philmarcracken · · Score: 1

      Just buy a crash test dummy and give him a pair of dark glasses, they'll never know you're enjoying 40 winks in the back seat.

  12. Bureaucrats, so late, and still so wrong by Sangui5 · · Score: 2

    I'm surprised it took this long for the bureaucrats to issue silly regulations. I mean, they're only 20 years behind.

    Having looked at the proposed regs, they kinda make sense.... if every Tom, Dick, and Harry were to be driving a self-driving car. If any schmuck with a bit of disposable income had a self-driving car, then overbearingly specific regulations might make sense. However (outside of a perhaps very rare to nonexistent hobbyist (this ain't a cheap game)), all of the self driving cars are owned and operated by large institutions. Since these institutions 1) have deep pockets, and 2) care greatly about their reputation, I can write appropriate regulations in a tweet:

    "Self-driving cars shall be bonded for 2 million dollars each against damage to life and property, burden of proof lying against the owner."

    Tweak the amount per currency or the value you place on life as you see fit, so long as the amount of the bond is whinging enough to keep out rich fools.

    1. Re:Bureaucrats, so late, and still so wrong by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      That's an American solution, not a British one.

  13. temporary regulations by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    In this case, I think that 'everybody' would agree that the current UK regulations do not have self driving cars as available for public use. Killer #1 is the requirement for a more highly trained driver than for a regular non-automated vehicle.

    This allows professional test drivers to get systems onto the public UK roads and start working out the specific idiosyncrasies of driving on UK roads. Nothing more.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  14. Title of the PDF by kennethmci · · Score: 2

    states that "A Code of Practice for testing". So these measures are for allowing clear guidelines on how driverless cars should be TESTED on the road. This code doesnt relate to driverless cars when driven by the public. Hence, the tester should have indepth knowledge of the systems in place and not distract other drivers by not following expectations ( e.g. hidden from view ).

    1. Re:Title of the PDF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you. The only commenter that didn't just have a knee-jerk reaction to a summary.

  15. Long term goal by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2

    I think the goal of governments both authoritarian and democratic (but I repeat myself) is to set the wheels in motion (pun intended) to remove even the option of quasi-anonymous large-scale movements of their citizens; a mobile Panopticon, if you will.

    When I think of autos, I frequently think of the folks in the Great Depression that drove out of the Dust Bowl and headed to California to start a new life. I suspect more than a few of them left behind mortgages and land payments in their wake. Starting from scratch somewhere else will never be allowed again by the Powers that Be.

    A variation of the speech from Inherit the Wind: "You sir, will be allowed your self-driving car, but before you leave town for good, it will drive you to the bank to make sure your financial affairs are in order."

    1. Re:Long term goal by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      A variation of the speech from Inherit the Wind: "You sir, will be allowed your self-driving car, but before you leave town for good, it will drive you to the bank to make sure your financial affairs are in order."

      In the case of the dust bowl, you wanted them gone - keeping them around due to debts would just result in more debts. Until you have to do bankruptcy paperwork, etc... You have to know when to cut your losses.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    2. Re:Long term goal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? That may have been true in the 30s, but it isn't today. I mean, I suppose you could quit everything and move to a cabin in the woods, but how often does that happen? Even the unabomber had an address.

      And GPS devices are more of a relevant factor than robot drivers.

  16. "Mimic The Act Of Driving" by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

    will have to mimic the act of driving, to avoid confusing other drivers

    Got it.

    *starts self-driving car*
    *begins texting friends using both hands while not even looking at the road*

    (Yes, I saw someone driving like this once. No, I don't know how they steered their car if no hands were on the wheel. I got away from them as quickly as I could.)

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  17. Mimic? by DriveDog · · Score: 2

    "...mimic the act of driving..."? Look down/sideways/backwards/just not ahead, yap on phone, read newspaper, & eat breakfast simultaneously? Pretend to swerve out of lane? Flip people off? Sleep? Oh, wait, UK, sorry... I'm thinking of us in the US.

    1. Re:Mimic? by lgw · · Score: 2

      "...mimic the act of driving..."? Look down/sideways/backwards/just not ahead, yap on phone, read newspaper, & eat breakfast simultaneously? Pretend to swerve out of lane? Flip people off? Sleep? Oh, wait, UK, sorry... I'm thinking of us in the US

      The big difference being: in the UK they flip people off with two fingers instead of one. Important to keep your mimicry culturally appropriate.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  18. Re: Automobiles? Was "Mimic the act of driving"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hardly anyone uses that term in the UK.

  19. How about RTFA for a change? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The PDF clearly states these are rules for self-driving cars TESTING. While the technology is in a testing phase, these rules don't seem entirely unreasonable.

  20. 10 and 2 no longer by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    More and more people are keeping their hands low. The old stupid saying was to keep your hands at 10 and 2, but with a bomb now built into the steering column, people are picking up on that being a good way to have both of your arms broken or worse.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:10 and 2 no longer by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      but with a bomb now built into the steering column, people are picking up on that being a good way to have both of your arms broken or worse.

      I think mythbusters busted that one. The expanding bag pushes your hands/arms harmlessly to the side, no matter what position on the wheel they are.

      It's just the usual fear of the new. Future generations will have no fear of airbags.

    2. Re:10 and 2 no longer by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

      mythbusters gets a lot of stuff wrong. Its entertainment, not science.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    3. Re:10 and 2 no longer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you're prepared to show specific errors in their work in this instance, you're spouting empty ad hominems.

    4. Re:10 and 2 no longer by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

      I don't waste my time finding specific error in mythbusters or scientology. Once the pattern is established I don't see any reason to further waste time. If you want to be a blindly believing sheep that is your business.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    5. Re:10 and 2 no longer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you have nothing, and you admit it.

    6. Re:10 and 2 no longer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not the GP.

      So, someone has pointed out the hole in your argument, and you're resorting to having no argument, just announcing that you're correct.

      You've failed to back your initial point up with evidence or reasoning, now you're refusing to accept that your initial position is wrong. Grow up. A lot.

    7. Re:10 and 2 no longer by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Right. You talking out of your ass is bound to be more reliable than actually testing the scenarios out.

      Idiot.

  21. ProTip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "will have to mimic the act of driving, to avoid confusing other drivers"

    If you are watching OTHER people drive you are doing it wrong!

  22. it is not about taking over by aepervius · · Score: 2

    It is primarily about the psychological aspect. If you saw a car driving without a driver, you would have the police have panicked calls. Same if the person is reading at the wheel or whatnot. This is not about taking over the wheel, this is about not panicking the other drivers with a behavior which is unexpected on the road. My guess is that such requirement would be dropped after a while when self driving car pick up. But as long as 99.9% of the driver have a certain expectation, you pretty much have to deliver that expectation even in a self driving car.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  23. And in further news by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    the UK government has mandated that drivers of horseless carriages must mimic the acts of a horseback rider so as not to confuse equestrians, with a person in the boot to fling a piece of horse dung every half mile. The exhaust system shall be tuned to produce an appropriate clopping sound, and the horn shall whinny.

    1. Re:And in further news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clever. It's almost like you're suggesting that this kind of law is backward and inappropriate. You know, as if the government weren't legislating for the testing of a new technology or something.

  24. Mimic the act of driving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just use the autopilot from Airplane II.

  25. Not a blindly believing sheep by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    No, I take each episode on their presented evidence. Occasionally I have issue with some facet of their testing procedures, but I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    Sure, they get 'a lot' of stuff wrong. So doesn't 'a lot' of accepted peer reviewed scientific papers. At least the mythbusters blow stuff up in interesting ways.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  26. Mcity to test driverless cars by jan_jes · · Score: 1

    Instead of testing this type of driverless cars in public roads, a new city is developed as a test environment for self driving vehicles.

  27. uk wants something else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the uk government ? this new-fascist movement in the UK ? they want self-driving cars ?
      What they want is perfect surveillance. Each of these cars will record 360 degree of his surroundings. There will be no non-CCTV area anymore. everywhere, and there will be question about how to use these surveillance devices.
    th

  28. Mimicing driving ? by nicolaiplum · · Score: 1

    It is easy to confuse other drivers by driving a car with the steering wheel on the opposite side to usual in that country.
    Try driving a UK car in Europe or vice versa with the passenger in the front offside seat holding up a newspaper to read, and count the double-takes from pedestrians and oncoming drivers.
    I don't see how a self-driving car could be much worse.

    --
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled"