Toyota Raises Concerns About California Self-Driving Oversight, Calls It 'Preposterous' (reuters.com)

A Toyota official on Tuesday raised concerns about California's plans to require compliance with a planned U.S. autonomous vehicle safety check list, calling it "preposterous." Reuters reports:Hilary Cain, director of technology and innovation policy at Toyota Motor North America, criticized California's proposal to require automakers to submit the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) 15-point safety check list before testing vehicles. "If we don't do what's being asked of us voluntarily by NHTSA, we cannot test an automated system in the state of California. That is preposterous and that means testing that is happening today could be halted and that means testing that is about to be started could be delayed," she said at a Capitol Hill forum. On September 30, California unveiled revised rules that carmakers will have to certify that they complied with the 15-point NHTSA assessment instead of self-driving cars being required to be tested by a third-party, as in the original proposal.

Comments

Why is it preposterous?

[Anonymous Coward]

"If we don't do what's being asked of us voluntarily by NHTSA, we cannot test an automated system in the state of California. That is preposterous and that means testing that is happening today could be halted and that means testing that is about to be started could be delayed"

Well sorry to shit on your parade, lady, but maybe it's not such a bad idea to slow all of this down and get it right. NHTSA isn't the devil. If you want to get angry at someone, go after IIHS. NHTSA is trying to actually keep the rest of us, who may someday interact with your automated system, safe from it.

Re:Why is it preposterous?

[ShanghaiBill]

Meanwhile, about 32,000 people die annually in vehicle accidents in America, about 88 per day. How many of those could be prevented if we didn't have bureaucrats trying to slow progress because it isn't perfectly safe?

Re:Why is it preposterous?

[wasted]

Perfectly safe, as in the "Zaphod Plays It Safe" sense?

Re:Why is it preposterous?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a trade-off between lives lost to traffic accidents and the costs of moving people around in cars. If you want fewer lives lost, be prepared to spend billions of dollars more per year for that safety - and it doesn't matter if that cost goes into magical self driving cars or into increased enforcement of laws, because they both amount to the same thing. And conversely, if you want more lives lost, you can decrease the costs by relaxing regulations, getting rid of driver's licenses, and so on.

Whatever you do, stop pretending like magical self driving cars will be cost free. Everything about them will cost more money.

Re:Why is it preposterous?

[AAWood]

bureaucrats trying to slow progress because it isn't perfectly safe

Do we know that the test would force them to be "perfectly safe"?

I genuinely want to know, I've no idea what those 15 points are, or whether or not they're reasonable. The summary just makes it sound like Toyota is upset at the test being there at all, rather than the contents of the test; I could check TFA, but that isn't the Slashdot way. If Toyota are just objecting to the test on principle, I'm with ACs post; oversight isn't an inherently bad thing. On the other hand, if it is the contents of the test itself, or some limit of how that testing has to be done that's truly stifling, I'm interested to hear what those problems are.

Re:Why is it preposterous?

[sabbede]

I think what they're complaining about is that the NHTSA's checklist is voluntary, while California is trying to make it mandatory. They've probably also spent a lot of money complying with California's old rules, and don't want to have to start over.

Re:Why is it preposterous?

[dywolf]

it doesn't have to be perfectly safe and you damn well know it.
it only needs to be as safe or safer than we expect people to be.

the statistic you cite is meaningless in terms of whether or not we let have some minimum level of reliability of self-driving cars.
any idiot should be able to see that we do not improve those statistics by just letting any other idiot put out a self driving car without regard to its reliability and safety.

Re:Why is it preposterous?

[oh_my_080980980]

Really ass-hole, it's government prevent corporations from making their products safe. So that's the reason why Samsung's Galaxy Note 7 is catching on fire - the government made 'em do it.

Re:Why is it preposterous?

[GrumpySteen]

Nothing in the 15 point checklist requires perfect safety. In fact, most of the items are just "it should include something that tries to do X" where X is "obey local traffic laws", "refuse to go into automatic mode if sensors are damaged", "save data if there's a crash" and "switch safely from autopilot to manual control."

The actual document can be found here and simple summary that leaves out a lot can be found here.

Re: Why is it preposterous?

[fluffernutter]

It has to be perfectly safe. Autonomous cars are removing a person's individual choices about how they choose to drive safely, so they have to. There is no way around it. There are plenty of drivers out there who figured out how to drive safely, so you can't add to their risk because they chose your particular driving product.to drive safely, so you can't add to their risk because they chose your particular driving product.

Re: Why is it preposterous?

[Bruce Perens]

While there may be many drivers who have achieved a certain level of safety, people have certain weaknesses that computers don't. They don't have perfect attention. Their reaction time is significant. Most people can't look in even two directions at once and their multitasking capability is pitiful.

So at some point in the future we will see that computers achieve a higher safety level than any sample of human drivers, while remaining imperfect. At this point, it will probably become necessary to ban manual driving on highways, for the protection of the other people on the highway.

Re:Why is it preposterous?

[parkinglot777]

I've no idea what those 15 points are...

Here you are 15 points check. I googled it for you. ;)

Re: Why is it preposterous?

[fluffernutter]

Sure but computers have a long way to go before their weaknesses don't overshadow their strengths in a way that amounts to being safer than a human.

Re: Why is it preposterous?

[stabiesoft]

Except there are numerous cases of even simple automated braking systems failing and slamming on the brakes for no reason. So when someone smashes into the car that erroneously hit the brakes full force who is at fault? Who is at fault when the inevitable hack comes in and causes the automated car(s) to do dangerous stuff? We are simply not ready for this. I submit voice recognition as the example. I remember in the 80's that it was just around the corner. Well it is 2016 (36 years later) and it is just now ALMOST as good as people. How many decades before automated driving is ALMOST as good as people?

Re: Why is it preposterous?

[Bruce Perens]

Sure but computers have a long way to go before their weaknesses don't overshadow their strengths in a way that amounts to being safer than a human.

I am wondering. People are good at inferring data from context. A ball bouncing into the street is liable to be followed by a child. A wobbly tire might be about to blow out and cause another car to veer suddenly. That sound might indicate a train coming.

Are these inferences not trainable? For certain image classification tasks, computers are already better than people.

Obviously we have a way to go if we take the Tesla approach, and equip the vehicle only with sensors that do not interfere with the vehicle's appearance. But the Google approach, where the vehicle has a good enough radar to sense moving objects that people can't see, might be closer to being able to operate with human-equivalent safety in limited situations. It's still going to need to hand over control on some roads or if it approaches something abnormal. But I'd happily pay for one that handles the highway most of the time.

Re:Why is it preposterous?

[vtcodger]

Thanks for the link. But that doesn't look like a checklist so much as like a PowerPoint slide. Not that it's evil or stupid, but how does one check off items like "Human Machine Interface: Approaches for communicating information to the driver,
occupant and other road users"?

I should think that there must be more detail somewhere.

Re:Why is it preposterous?

[Anonymous Coward]

I did read the TFA and there's STILL no indication as to WHY Toyota called the proposal 'preposterous'. Are they complaining about the requirement that they 'self-test' vs needing to use an independent 3rd-Party? If so why? The wording of TFA makes it actually sound like that's what they are complaining about. There's indications that they believe the NHTSA isn't 'skilled enough' to analyze any certification report, and comments about 'we need to talk about these requirements more'. E.g. a 'general indication of dissatisfaction'...ok, fine but if someone's going to write an article with the term 'preposterous' thrown around it behooves them to identify what EXACTLY they were so upset about.

TFS & TFA are perfect examples of 'click-bait', absolutely 0 content. I don't particularly mind 'inflammatory stories' if there is sufficient information in the article for me to make up my own mind but there's none of that here. It's an absolutely useless summary & article.

Re: Why is it preposterous?

[Bruce Perens]

Does vehicle maneuvering include a similar amount of ambiguity to the problem of recognizing natural language? It might not.

Re: Why is it preposterous?

[fluffernutter]

To my knowledge Google cars have only been driven in near perfect conditions. Ie no blizzards or blowing snow or ice of any kind. Also the technology on Google cars is way more unaffordable than a Tesla.

Re: Why is it preposterous?

[Bruce Perens]

So, California conditions other than the mountains. Not a problem for me, and an obvious good place to start.

Regarding cost, they're prototypes. If the system adds $30,000 to the cost of the vehicle, it would be cost-effective for a lot of people here. I doubt it has to add that much.

Re: Why is it preposterous?

[fluffernutter]

But would it be cost effective in a 98% adoption kind of way? Are almost all people going to stop buying a $5000 used car and drop $40 K on a Google car that might be dangerous in bad weather? Total adoption is required for safety gains.

Re:Why is it preposterous?

[tlhIngan]

Thanks for the link. But that doesn't look like a checklist so much as like a PowerPoint slide. Not that it's evil or stupid, but how does one check off items like "Human Machine Interface: Approaches for communicating information to the driver,
occupant and other road users"?

It's not a checklist. It's a collection of items that the NHTSA will want to review. Basically it's a list of requirements, but without prescription on how to fulfill them. Instead, they're general guidelines and you enter in how you handled the isssue.

For your example, you'd list of how the HMI of your car is. For the Google car, it wouldn't include a steering wheel because those don't have one. For a more normal car like a Tesla, then you'd include that. You'd also include what sort of indications you're going to tell the driver, and how you want the present the information to the driver.

It may be as simple as a regular car dashboard, or maybe you'll have a monitor showing the current path,current objects detected and other information.

The list is intentionally vague because they don't want to limit your designs, but they want you to think about issues that you may not realize are issues

Re: Why is it preposterous?

[Bruce Perens]

About 61% nationally of fatal crashes involve only one vehicle. The NHTSA says here that in about 70% of fatal single-vehicle crashes, the automobile ran off of the road. This is low-hanging fruit for computer driving to achieve a safety improvement.

98% acceptance? Probably 40 years from the first deployment of true autonomous systems. The rich and businesses go first. Just as luxury cars and long-haul trucks have always been the first to get almost any safety feature.

Re: Why is it preposterous?

[fluffernutter]

Yes I've heard that logic before, yet here in real life, automated features stay as luxury features unless forced by law, and people cant be forced to do something that is more difficult on their finances.

Re: Why is it preposterous?

[ShanghaiBill]

To my knowledge Google cars have only been driven in near perfect conditions. Ie no blizzards or blowing snow or ice of any kind.

Google has a test center in Michigan. Uber tests their cars in Pittsburgh. Tesla Autopilot has driven millions of miles on snowy and icy roads.

Re: Why is it preposterous?

[fluffernutter]

As long as it was the kind of winter driving where there were only two ruts in ice and the snow was blowing then fair enough.

Re:Why is it preposterous?

[thegarbz]

Well shit I'm glad privacy made the list. We can test the self driving car but we're not allowed to record the results and share it with the rest of the company!

Re: Why is it preposterous?

[Anonymous Coward]

...people cant be forced to do something that is more difficult on their finances.

That is hilarious. You are truly a master of comedy.

Re:Why is it preposterous?

[vtcodger]

"The list is intentionally vague because they don't want to limit your designs, but they want you to think about issues that you may not realize are issues"

All well and good. Really.

But California is apparently treating this intentionally vague survey as if it were a concrete list of requirements. Toyota would seem to be correct. That's not a very good idea. Preposterous may not be the right word, but I reckon it'll do. What is Toyota supposed to do to avoid risk of lawsuits or fines or having their test program arbitrarily shut down years and millions of dollars downstream when one of their autonomous vehicles somehow becomes an issue?

Re: Why is it preposterous?

[vtcodger]

"So at some point in the future we will see that computers achieve a higher safety level than any sample of human drivers, while remaining imperfect. At this point, it will probably become necessary to ban manual driving on highways, for the protection of the other people on the highway."

Simplistic. For one thing, automatic things like cars is surely going to turn out to be MUCH harder than most anyone expects. Ask folks who have experience applying computers to real world physical processes. The number and variety of things that can and will go wrong is astonishing. Especially once one ventures of the expressway and away from pre-plotted test circuits to a world of kids, pets, horsecarts, wildlife, poorly marked intersections, bicyclists, construction projects, etc, etc, etc. Moreover, even after most of the bugs are ironed out, there are going to be occasional situations -- a road covered with heavy snow (where's the edge?), a fireman or policeman directing traffic up over the sidewalk and up a one-way street in the wrong direction -- that will require human intervention.

(And removing the steering wheel and pedals is almost certainly a bad idea. They'll give us some sort of probably horribly designed joystick or touch screen interface instead?)

I would agree that there may well eventually come a time when overriding the computer -- at least in urban areas -- will be something that can require an explanation after the event. But that time is surely a LONG way in the future.

Re: Why is it preposterous?

[vtcodger]

"To my knowledge Google cars have only been driven in near perfect conditions. Ie no blizzards or blowing snow or ice of any kind."

My impression also. I don't have any problem with that. It's an intelligent way to run an R&D program. The only problem is that Google is probably only 15% or so of the way to having a viable autonomous vehicle that you can drop anywhere where there is an accurate digital streetmap in any sort of weather and not have it be a menace to living creatures and inanimate objects. That's OK also as long as management and the public understand that there is a VERY long way to go.

"also the technology on Google cars is way more unaffordable than a Tesla."

Price comes down when your production run is 20 million units?

Re: Why is it preposterous?

[fluffernutter]

The thing is, they are sending mixed messages. A VERY long way to go means 50 years, not 5.

As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

This is nascent tech that has been waaaaaay rushed.

Re:As it should be

[spire3661]

No, its way late. Its time to radically rethink our vehicle infrastructure NOW. Self-driving should be flat out outlawed within 20 years. 30,000 souls a year screaming for us to change is a powerful motivator. Keep up or get out of the way.

Re: As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

Re:As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

you just went full tard

Re: As it should be

[spire3661]

Truly a well-reasoned and impassioned response to the 30,000 people killed every year, the vast majority of which were caused by direct human inattention to detail. People are the worst drivers imaginable, robots cannot possibly EVER be worse.

Re:As it should be

[thinkwaitfast]

I'm sure you'd agree that autopilot system testing by the FAA is too onerous also. Flying is the safest form of travel, but everyone doesn't use it because it is expensive. Part of the reason it is expensive is because of all the regulations aircraft have to comply with. By eliminating testing. the price will come down, more people will take planes and helicopters everywhere and even more lives will be saved.

Re: As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

You throwing the highway fatalities card is so fucking crass, dude. It spits on all of their graves. If that is seriously the only point you have for your argument, do us all a favor and just delete your account.

Re: As it should be

[ewibble]

Robot may or may not be better, but to say humans are the worst drivers imaginable is a hyperbole. I suppose you let your dog drive because it is safer.

the population of the US is 318 million (I assume that 30,000 is in the US), that is 0.009% of people die, sure it could better. 13,322 people die from falls, given that walking is so much slower are we even worse at walking.

To me it is not apparent that less people will die, if robots drive, you need actual evidence and testing, not wild statements about how bad people are.driving you need use actual facts.

If I died every time my computer had a blue screen I would be dead a long time ago.

Re:As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

Who drives 80MPH with more than 10 people in a vehicle? Assault cars must be banned now!

Re: As it should be

[fluffernutter]

People are out there driving knowing the statistics. Obviously many feel the risk is acceptable. Few will pay double for a car for automation.

Re:As it should be

[FatdogHaiku]

I'm waiting for Samsung to put out a self driving electric car, it'll be hot...
Bonus, no need to paint flames on the sides!

Re:As it should be

[Ol Olsoc]

I'm sure you'd agree that autopilot system testing by the FAA is too onerous also. Flying is the safest form of travel, but everyone doesn't use it because it is expensive. Part of the reason it is expensive is because of all the regulations aircraft have to comply with. By eliminating testing. the price will come down, more people will take planes and helicopters everywhere and even more lives will be saved.

Interesting that you use flying as an example. Here is a list of the safest ways to travel: Trains - .2 deaths per billion miles

Buses - .5 deaths per billion mile

Airplanes .5 deaths per billion miles

Cars - 4 deaths per billion miles

Space Shuttle - 7 deaths per billion miles (18 peopple total)

Ferries - 20 deaths per billion miles

Bicycles - 35 deaths per billion miles

Walking 41 deaths per billion miles

Motorcycles - 125 deaths per billion miles

source - http://961theeagle.com/what-is...

So we gotta robotize the 4th safest method of travel?

Re: As it should be

[Berkyjay]

People are the only drivers imaginable.

Re: As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

People are the worst drivers imaginable, robots cannot possibly EVER be worse.

A date calculation mistake which causes a byte to spill into the acceleration variable thus causing every self-driving car to begin an uncontrolled acceleration at the same time. People make a lot of stupid mistakes, but individual mistakes don't scale. A robotic car only needs to have one bug and it can cause a problem with every car. HP put a data-based kill code in their printers. What happens when a car battery manufacturer decides to do the same thing but that bit of code accidently explodes all batteries above 9% charge when its triggered? They only tested it on spare, end-of-life batteries and the software couldn't handled a % charge being reported as more than 1 digit.

Re:As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

Go fuck yourself anti-human globalist scum.

Re: As it should be

[BoogieChile]

> I suppose you let your dog drive because it is safer

With better hearing, better vision and faster reflexes, it very probably would be. The only problem is, he can't reach the pedals and his paws keep slipping off the steering wheel.

Re: As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, go fuck yourself anti-human globalist scum. I bet you're the first one to pipe up about overpopulation and how we need to reduce the world's population by 75% to sustain bleh bleh bleh blah. But "those poor 30,000 souls". Yeah, cry me a fucking river, you disingenuous bastard.

Re:As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

WHEN (and not until) machines are actually better at driving than humans, then machines should do all the driving.

We aren't there yet. But we are moving in leaps and bounds.

There is *nothing* anti-human about saving human lives by taking human error out of decisions that put other humans at risk, you dolt.

Re: As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey moron, you have *no fucking clue* how much your safety already depends on mindbogglingly complex electronics every day.

The bugs are being worked out. It won't happen overnight. That's why we won't have autonomous cars everywhere overnight. We will get there a bit at a time, whether you like it or not.
   

Re:As it should be

[fluffernutter]

Are they moving in leaps and bounds? I would think they would be putting fine touches on by now, rather than stumbling down a road wrong way. These are major issues with the data not even being right.

Re: As it should be

[backslashdot]

It's a damn good card. Reducing the fatalities ASAP is the main point and should be our goal. I mean are you saying you are cool with 30,000 people dying on US roadways? And I am sure when we include all the world's highways the number will go up to the 100s of thousands. We know that the Tesla is safer than any other automobile. It's been fucking proven already no thanks to people like you who tried hard to block it. How much testing do you need? Cause while you are doing testing, which will never satisfy you .. because how can testing relieve your hate? It can't. No amount of testing will work for you. You and I both no that the reason you want testing is to make these cars unaffordable or not worthy of investment. Let's drop the pretend and find out your real grievance.

Re: As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

A date calculation mistake overflowing into the acceleration value would be a scaled individual's error, no?

Re: As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

No it's not. In fact, nothing in your post really makes sense. But that doesn't seem to have been your goal. I understand that people with certain cognitive limitations can't keep up in a conversation with grown-ups, but your refusal to accept this about yourself, and politely abstain from spouting your uninspired nonsense, is really a step down, even for someone like you.

Re: As it should be

[backslashdot]

LOL it must be maddening to live with such insane paranoia. You a Trump voter? Anti Vaxxer? Anyway, collision avoidance systems take priority over navigation, and navigation is not tied to the date. Seriously if you have never taken a software engineering class or even written a program in your life you really shouldn't be hallucinating on how software bugs work.

Re: As it should be

[backslashdot]

Nationalists really shouldn't be calling anyone anti-human. Not when your core values are that it's OK to torture foreigners without being absolutely certain of their guilt and also that it's ok to kill all the relatives of terrorists (again, without any regard as to whether they are guilty or involved). That's the flag you Trump voting nationalists are carrying. Nationalism hates the concept of all human beings having value. Nationalists believe only certain human beings have any value or rights. That's a fact.

Re: As it should be

[backslashdot]

Yeah, my office isn't a boat in the middle of a lake so I can't take the ferry there.

And driving should be safer regardless of where it ranks in the list of transportation modes.

Re: As it should be

[arth1]

It's a damn good card. Reducing the fatalities ASAP is the main point and should be our goal.

Why? We trade safety for freedom with a higher risk of fatality in pretty much all aspects of life. It's called living.

The lifetime risk of dying in a car accident is around 0.17%, which I think are very acceptable odds. Certainly much better odds than for the risk of dying from a fall, which is around 0.5%. We could reduce that quite substantially if we lived in padded rooms and moved around with walkers, wearing helmets.
But I prefer the freedom that accepting risks give.
If I die, I will have lived.

Re: As it should be

[Ol Olsoc]

Yeah, my office isn't a boat in the middle of a lake so I can't take the ferry there.

And driving should be safer regardless of where it ranks in the list of transportation modes.

And I don't ride buses either. What's your point? I just went through the safest modes of transportation by miles traveled.

Re: As it should be

[swalve]

That's only because lots of elderly people die as a result of complications from a fall.

Re:As it should be

[Dutch Gun]

"Per billion mile" is a stupid way to measure safety in practical terms. We don't measure our lives in miles or kilometers. We measure them using time.

Let's look at those transportation methods in fatalities per billion hours traveled:

Bus - 11
Rail - 30
Air - 30
Water - 50
Van - 60
Car - 130
Foot - 220
Bicycle - 550
Motorcycle - 4,840
Space Shuttle - 438,019

Now, let's consider how many hours we spend each day in each of these activities. I'd guess I'm in the car an average of perhaps 1 1/2 hours per day. Since nothing else comes close (assuming treadmills don't count as "walking"), I'm at FAR more risk than dying in a car crash than any other transportation method by a very large margin.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics. According to your statistics, the space shuttle is only slightly more dangerous than driving in a car and less dangerous than a ferry, which is obvious nonsense.

Re: As it should be

[swalve]

The evidence and testing is being done, and accident rates are lower for autonomous cars already.

Re:As it should be

[swalve]

Per mile is kind of disengenuous. What happens when you do it per trip or per hour of travel? Also, by your own numbers, plane travel is nearly 10 times safer than automobile travel. So there is plenty of room for improvement.

Re: As it should be

[Gavagai80]

Nothing kills young healthy people like cars do. Anyway, if you want to risk your life on the road there will always be race tracks and recreational vehicle areas where you won't hurt anybody. We could even keep some back country roads open to you, perhaps... and of course anywhere on private property.

Re:As it should be

[Gavagai80]

Those bicyclists and motorcyclist and walking deaths you're citing as being so much bigger than car deaths are mostly killed by cars.

Re: As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

imaginable

That word does not mean what you think it means.

Re: As it should be

[ShanghaiBill]

that is 0.009% of people die, sure it could better.

You are not thinking this through. Sure, SDCs are safer, so we can reduce fatalities. But another option, is that we could keep fatalities at their current acceptable (to you) level, and just have the SDCs drive faster. The average American spends about 300 hours per year driving. By doubling the speed, we could cut that to 150 hours. The savings would be 150 hours * 330 million people / 365 / 24 = 5.6 million years. If the average lifetime is 80 years, then this is about 70,000 lifetimes saved annually.

From a purely utilitarian perspective faster SDCs actually make more sense than safer SDCs.

Re: As it should be

[ShanghaiBill]

Few will pay double for a car for automation.

Tesla charges an extra $3k for the Autopilot option, which includes all the sensors and actuators needed for automation. That is no where near "double".

Re: As it should be

[backslashdot]

Living in a padded room is terribly inconvenient. We can make cars automated for very little cost, its certainly worth it .. there is no inconvenience .. in fact there is convenience ... we can watch TV or videochat with family during the commute. How is that not a benefit? You are saying we should partake in a risky activity even if the less risky alternative is more convenient and fun? What fool goes for that??

Plus, I dunno about you .. but I am also not found of car accident related injuries. You realize that a lot of car accidents leave people maimed, with terrible injuries? There are a number of paraplegics and quadriplegics who are only that way because of car accidents. We have to give up being able to watch Netflix during our commute because you think our lives need more risk?

Re: As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Keanu Reeves available for the next installment in the Speed franchise in which he has to stop people charging their cars?

Re: As it should be

[goose-incarnated]

Few will pay double for a car for automation.

Tesla charges an extra $3k for the Autopilot option, which includes all the sensors and actuators needed for automation. That is no where near "double".

They also claim that it isn't self-driving.

Re: As it should be

[goose-incarnated]

The evidence and testing is being done, and accident rates are lower for autonomous cars already.

No, it isn't. Stop comparing "self-driving cars that are corrected by a human" with "human-driven cars".

Re:As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

No, its way late. Its time to radically rethink our vehicle infrastructure NOW. Self-driving should be flat out outlawed within 20 years. 30,000 souls a year screaming for us to change is a powerful motivator. Keep up or get out of the way.

What about the 90,000 that die a year to alcohol? Should we make "progress" by trying prohibition again too?

Re: As it should be

[ShanghaiBill]

They also claim that it isn't self-driving.

It is only partially self driving. But that is because of the software, not the hardware. Once the software is ready, Tesla says that the cars already in the hands of customers will be fully self driving.

So $3000 is enough to make a HDC into a SDC. Once production ramps up, it is likely that the cost will fall dramatically. You will save far more in insurance premiums than the additional cost for the self-driving capability.

Re: As it should be

[Joce640k]

Nothing kills young healthy people like cars do.

Motorbikes?

Motorbikes kill more young people than the military does (but we don't treat bikers like heroes, do we?)

Re: As it should be

[Joce640k]

If I die, I will have lived.

Yep. Your daily commute is really "living". I admire you for being so alive.

Re: As it should be

[Knuckles]

People are the worst drivers imaginable, robots cannot possibly EVER be worse.

Wow that's stupid

Re: As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

Dont forget injuries. Life as unemployed invalid is also quite negative consecuence of manual driving.

Re: As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

True

Re: As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

The throttle and brake of almost every car made in the last decade is already controlled by the computer. About the only thing that isn't universally computer-controlled are the door handles, e-break and steering wheel, and even those are motor-assisted in many cases.

We are basically moving from the human giving input to the computer which drives the car to sensors & cameras giving input to the computer which drives the car.

Remember the whole run-away-toyota-acceleration fiasco? It was eventually tracked down to the floor mats, but the ECU is so tightly integrated already that it took a long time to definitely rule it out. Drive-by-wire has been standard for a long time, we're just replacing the meat bag that controls the inputs.

Re: As it should be

[goose-incarnated]

Once the software is ready,

The software was 98% there 18 years ago. That last 2% hasn't been achieved in 18 years, yet you think it will be achieved in the next five?

Re: As it should be

[goose-incarnated]

Yeah, my office isn't a boat in the middle of a lake so I can't take the ferry there.

And driving should be safer regardless of where it ranks in the list of transportation modes.

And you never walk either.

Re: As it should be

[fluffernutter]

Doesn't really matter if it is double or not.. how many families do you think there are that can afford an extra $3K on a car? Most I know are having a hard enough time buying used. Change my comment to 'no one is going to want to spend an extra $3K' then if it makes you feel better. The point is that the risk is already acceptable for most people, so few will want to pay more when it's not even clear if their risk will be reduced.

Re: As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

So self driving cars will be safer than humans because humans are falliable, yet the software is written by humans.

If we can't drives a car safely, what makes you think we can write software to drive the car safely?

Re: As it should be

[umghhh]

I think hope for silver app fixing it all for you is slightly exaggerated. Sure we will have relatively safe assisted driving sooner or later. Whether this will make driving cheaper is as good a question as the one about fatalities. I am not even arguing for human drivers being better. What I have problems with is the idiocy of 'new technology fixing it all and once for all and being available tomorrow. I also have serious problems with motivation for doing these silver apps in case of number of serious players in this field.
Otherwise you can also save some lives by forcing people to actually walk at least short distances - this of course will cause a short spike of heart failure related deaths for real fat blobs the rest will survive and be healthier. Maybe even start realizing that human race is not a race after all.

Re: As it should be

[umghhh]

I always had problems with people that tried to help me especially if this meant me paying anything to them and the respective fees being made mandatory by industry or even state. In other words - if you want to help me ask first if I need help.

Re: As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

People are the worst drivers imaginable

If you're only imagined options are "people" or "AI designed for driving", uhh, yeah, I suppose, but you're not being very imaginative. I think manatees would be even worse, myself. Or orangutans. Look out the window, and then imagine if all the people driving the cars you see were suddenly substituted with orangutans? I bet they'd be worse drivers. Or, like, what if we imagined a creature just like people, except they all had long fringes that kept covering their eyes, and pores on their hands that occasionally released a super-slippy oil, and a common medical complaint which mean their right leg would sometimes cramp up? They're definitely worse.

Re: As it should be

[AAWood]

...Because when a fallible human makes a mistake driving a car, an accident can occur right there and then, while when a fallible human makes a mistake programming the AI for the car, it's followed by months, or years, or decades of testing and oversight during which someone can say "hey, there's a mistake here, let's fix that" before any real-world accidents are possible.

Plus, when a fallible human makes a mistake that gets someone killed, the best case scenario (from a future safety point of view) is that they individually learn from that mistake, and they individually avoid that issue in future. When a self-driving car makes a mistake that gets someone killed, the situation can be accurately recorded, examined, discussed, fixed, and rolled out in such a way that no self-driving car ever makes that same mistake again.

Re: As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

Please cite a source for your otherwise made up numbers. Google for example has made extensive advances in the technology needed in just the last few years. Their car's could probably deploy today and reduce the fatality rates but they are being cautious.

Re: As it should be

[dywolf]

robots cannot possibly EVER be worse.

said by a person who clearly knows nothing about both technology and fallacies.

Re: As it should be

[dywolf]

no, the reality is that people are very bad at judging risk at all.

Re: As it should be

[dywolf]

so answer the question: should these cars be let on the road before or after those bugs are worked out?

Re:As it should be

[dywolf]

air travel is expensive because they deregulated the industry, which while followed by a short term price crash, also led to massive consolidation, reduced competition, and sure as s--- the prices went back up, and stayed there, only now the service is worse, and in fewer locations.

and did you actually suggest eliminating testing as a way to lower prices and save lives?
you're an idiot.
you know nothing of this topic.

also lets consider than the autopilot of an airplane is in no way comparable to that of a car. aircraft travel faster, but they also don't fly in anything approaching similar proximity to each other as cars do, often being surrounded on all sides by other cars.

aircraft autopilots also don't actively steer the aircraft after making command decisions. they are not "aware" in the way that SDC are expected to be. rather an autopilot is more typically told to maintain a current attitude, altitude, speed, or course, being more of a self-correcting feedback loop than an actual replacement pilot actively executing some sort of command authority.

Re: As it should be

[Talderas]

US 2014 road fatality statistics:

29,989 fatal motor vehicle crashes resulting in 32,675 fatalities.
Fatalities by Vehicle Type: Car (38%), Pickup/SUV (25%), Large Truck (2%), Motorcyclist (13%), Pedestrian (15%), Bicyclist (2%)
Fatalities by Crash Type: Single-vehicle (57%), Multiple-vehicle (43%)
Drivers Killed: 15,479 (47% of total fatalities)
Drivers Killed with BAC >= 0.08: 4,913 (15% of total fatalities)
Road Fatalities by Environment: Urban (47%), Rural (51%)

Re:As it should be

[Ol Olsoc]

According to your statistics, the space shuttle is only slightly more dangerous than driving in a car and less dangerous than a ferry, which is obvious nonsense.

Whoosh!

Re:As it should be

[Ol Olsoc]

Per mile is kind of disengenuous. What happens when you do it per trip or per hour of travel? Also, by your own numbers, plane travel is nearly 10 times safer than automobile travel. So there is plenty of room for improvement.

Or number of total trips, or survivors per accident? Or passenger miles, or by television coverage or day of the week? Does anyone note that the original post I replied to was by mile, so I replied by mile?

While I tend to believe that train travel is pretty darn safe, space shuttle flight is skewed by the fact that once achieving orbit, you are travelling somewhere around 17,500 miles per hour once in orbit, so racking up the miles at a prodigious pace.

It wouldn't stop me from tiding in one, but big kablooey things like rockets aren't terribly safe.

Re: As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

My next car will probably cost 5K. An extra 3K is a lot for someone like me to handle.

Re: As it should be

[arth1]

You are saying we should partake in a risky activity even if the less risky alternative is more convenient and fun?

I guess "let's go for a ride!" is something never heard in your household. The joy of not just using a car as transportation from A to B, but as a means of exploration. Seeing new things. Not knowing where the road takes you.
If you don't think that is fun, and is willing to trade it for making a very low risk even lower, I feel sorry for you.

Re:As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

No matter how you cut the stats, motorcycles are universally a dangerous form of travel which are included in motor vehicle fatality statistics. Therefore, instead of self-driving cars we should instead be looking at self-driving motorcycles.

Re: As it should be

[backslashdot]

You seem to think we won't be able to tell an autonomous vehicle commands like "take us to a random destination on highway 101"?

And again, I am sure there will be trails and areas you can self drive a vehicle at your own risk.

Re: As it should be

[fluffernutter]

You have a choice to live in a place with less commute.

Re: As it should be

[fluffernutter]

How can you be so confident that the sensors are right when it isn't even close to autonomous yet? What sensor will differentiate between a floating shopping bag and a flying rock?

Re: As it should be

[fluffernutter]

When a human gets in an accident, most start driving a bit slower and more carefully, thus increasing their overall safety. With Al, the accident will get fixed specifically on a left turn, but then happen on a right turn. It will take a long time to work through all the possibilities because even though they are called AI, there is no adaptation.

Re:As it should be

[Ol Olsoc]

Those bicyclists and motorcyclist and walking deaths you're citing as being so much bigger than car deaths are mostly killed by cars.

True. But seriously - note that my response was pointing out that using the safest by miles travelled is a strange metric to use. Y'all disagreeing with me are inadvertantly proving my point.

Re: As it should be

[arth1]

You seem to think we won't be able to tell an autonomous vehicle commands like "take us to a random destination on highway 101"?

Again, you miss the point entirely. The point is to make decisions on the fly. It's not the destination, it's the ride.

And again, I am sure there will be trails and areas you can self drive a vehicle at your own risk.

And again you miss the point. If you remove the freedom to go anywhere except a playpen, you remove what's compelling: Freedom.

As for risk, I repeat: The lifetime risk of dying in a car accident is around 0.17%
Not per year. Lifetime. It's going to be much lower for you, given the years you have already lived.
I am sure there are car free zones you can drive your autonomous vehicles around at less risk.

Re: As it should be

[parkinglot777]

The average American spends about 300 hours per year driving. By doubling the speed, we could cut that to 150 hours. The savings would be 150 hours * 330 million people / 365 / 24 = 5.6 million years.

Err.... You are misleading with the number. You shouldn't add all times which concurrently occurs to one big number (similar to the Pokemon Go post about extending lives). That is not the way it is because the 300 hours per year per person is still that much to each person. You can't quantify every single activity of each person would be the same quantity. However, saying 300 hours per year per person would be good enough and it explains itself.

Re: As it should be

[goose-incarnated]

The software was 98% there 18 years ago. That last 2% hasn't been achieved in 18 years, yet you think it will be achieved in the next five?

Please cite a source for your otherwise made up numbers.

Sure thing, from the history of self-driving cars

:

n 1994, the twin robot vehicles VaMP and Vita-2 of Daimler-Benz and Ernst Dickmanns of UniBwM drove more than 620 miles (1,000 km) on a Paris three-lane highway in standard heavy traffic at speeds up to 81 miles per hour (130 km/h), albeit semi-autonomously with human interventions. They demonstrated autonomous driving in free lanes, convoy driving, and lane changes with autonomous passing of other cars

...

In 1995, Carnegie Mellon University's Navlab project completed a 3,100 miles (5,000 km) cross-country journey, of which 98.2% was autonomously controlled, dubbed "No Hands Across America".[37]

...

Also in 1995, Dickmanns' re-engineered autonomous S-Class Mercedes-Benz undertook a 990 miles (1,590 km) journey from Munich in Bavaria, Germany to Copenhagen, Denmark and back, using saccadic computer vision and transputers to react in real time. The robot achieved speeds exceeding 109 miles per hour (175 km/h) on the German Autobahn, with a mean time between human interventions of 5.6 miles (9.0 km), or 95% autonomous driving. It drove in traffic, executing manoeuvres to pass other cars. Despite being a research system without emphasis on long distance reliability, it drove up to 98 miles (158 km) without human intervention.

SDC's have gotten more hype the last five years than many Apple products. This does in any way mean that there have been advances over the 158km stretch of self-driving that occurred in 1995.

Re: As it should be

[gnick]

so answer the question: should these cars be let on the road before or after those bugs are worked out?

If we wait until we're sure that all the bugs are worked out, the cars will literally never be allowed on the road, despite being enormously better than the alternative. Should we refuse to let people drive until we're sure that they'll never make an error?

Re:As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense? The space shuttle is definitely safer than taking a car or ferry into the vacuum of space.

Re: As it should be

[fluffernutter]

Well one thing is for sure, we shouldn't take away a person's freedom to drive at a minimal, 100% safe speed and then get them in an accident.

Re: As it should be

[b0bby]

You'll still be able to get a $5k car. You will just have to wait an extra 10 years after the original purchaser has paid the $3k for the autonomous upgrade to get one with self driving features. Think about it - even when they become available, they will initially only be a small part of the cars sold in, say, 2020. Even if they are the majority of cars sold by 2030, there will still be lots of used non autonomous cars available at that point and beyond. Maybe by 2050 it will be hard to get anything else, but who knows what Uber will be offering as a per mile rate by then - maybe car ownership will seem quaint to some people, at least in urban areas.

Re:As it should be

[b0bby]

Yeah, those deaths should decline as a result of self driving cars too.

Re: As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

> I suppose you let your dog drive because it is safer

With better hearing, better vision and faster reflexes, it very probably would be. The only problem is, he can't reach the pedals and his paws keep slipping off the steering wheel.

Stilts & velcro.

You're welcome.

Tell Fido I said "woof".

Re: As it should be

[AAWood]

[quote]When a human gets in an accident, most start driving a bit slower and more carefully, thus increasing their overall safety.[/quote] People slow down to get a better look at the accident, and lose focus from their driving. From the wikipedia entry for "rubbernecking":

According to a 2003 study in the U.S., rubbernecking was the cause of 16% of distraction-related traffic accidents.

With Al, the accident will get fixed specifically on a left turn, but then happen on a right turn.

Assuming that's true (and I have no reason to accept it is, at least as an inherent flaw of the process; I could argue that, at least as often, fixing the root of the left hand crash could prevent the equivalent right hand crash and a whole set of unforeseen related situations from ever happening), that's still better than for humans, where people could collectively have 1,000 of the same type of crash turning left, 1,000 turning right, and then see absolutely no drop in the number of those types of crash.

It will take a long time to work through all the possibilities because even though they are called AI, there is no adaptation.

Not a problem. The claim here isn't "AI will start perfect and always be perfect", it's "AI will rapidly become, and then always be, better than the average driver". Once that happens, lives are already being saved, and it'll only get better (especially as more SDCs get on the road, planning optimal movements together, dealing with less unpredictable human drivers).

Re: As it should be

[myrdos2]

People are the worst drivers imaginable, robots cannot possibly EVER be worse.

Yes, but we're working on it.

Re: As it should be

[AAWood]

(Also, shoutout to Slashdot's mobile interface for not having an option to preview before posting, awesome setup.)

Re: As it should be

[ewibble]

Maybe, maybe not, what I was saying is that it is not obvious that it is safer. The tests that are currently done are under limited conditions with human supervisors.

Having you seen the DARPA robotics challenge https://www.youtube.com/watch?... although impressive and more general purpose than self driving cars, they are still slow and prone to failure at tasks that humans find easy. It is not at all obvious that sticking one of these in front of the wheel will be safer.

This testing also only tests a particular software/hardware version, you are not including the possibility of a software update with a bug, killing thousands if not millions of people.

Re:As it should be

[orgelspieler]

I've never met a biker who said, "You know, what I really need is less freedom on the road."

Re: As it should be

[backslashdot]

The point is to make decisions on the fly. It's not the destination, it's the ride.

Why are you fixated on the idea that you can't change destinations on the fly in an autonomous vehicle? In fact an autonomous vehicle is far more perfect for that. Just tell the vehicle you changed you mind go to X instead. Also, the driver can enjoy the scenery better .. and participate in looking at maps etc.

you miss the point. If you remove the freedom to go anywhere except a playpen, you remove what's compelling: Freedom.

What the heck, I am talking about INCREASING the freedom to go places! Who wants to remove the freedom to go places? You! You can still go driving many places. You can still go horseback riding, exploring, taking offroad vehicles places etc. What the hell, the freedom to explore would be increased not decreased. I don't need you to tell me about the value of exploring I have done my share of exploring not just domestically but internationally too .. places like Asia, Central America, Europe. Places that had real risks. For example, I am sure I risked various deaths by snake, mosquitos, or jellyfish by going to those places .. but they offered some value. The value offered by being able to drive is not very high, I am sorry. Especially when there will be designated areas for that.

I don't know about you but I don't get much out of the stop & go traffic of Silicon Valley where I live. I mean YOU might find it fulfilling to do nothing except brake and accelerate every 10 seconds for an hour every weekday of your life .. but some of us feel like our time during the commute could be spent doing better things like watching TV or doing video chat.

Re: As it should be

[spire3661]

Driving is not a right, it is not a leisure activity. Its a means of conveyance from point A to point B. You will still be able to human-drive a car, but your insurance will be prohibitively expensive. This isnt even conjecture, its inevitable fact. Once robot cars take over, the insurance actuarial tables will force them to charge exorbitant rates due to the unnecessary risk of allowing a human to operate the vehicle. Make no mistake, the days of humans driving vehicles are numbered.

Re: As it should be

[spire3661]

What an enlightened and well-reasoned response. I am in awe of your eloquence and articulation on the subject matter at hand.

Re: As it should be

[thegarbz]

If I died every time my computer had a blue screen I would be dead a long time ago.

If I died every time my computer had a blue screen I would be a little less dead with every updated system that has been released. I can count without using any fingers or toes how many times I've blue screened in the past 5 years and that's really the point.

Humans have show to be highly resistant to improving their driving safety as a species with the most advances in mortality being the result of wrapping them in cushions of air and taking control away from them.
Computers on the other hand don't think, they calculate. If they calculate based on an incorrect formula that formula can be changed. It is a deterministic problem and potentially also a problem that can be mass trained. Think of Telsa's recent accident, and subsequent software update to prevent that accident from happening again across the entire updated fleet.

So you're right, the robot may not be better, but only at first. There's only one way for it's improvement to go, ... unlike humans.

Re: As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

If adding an automated driver to "let's go for a ride" doesn't make "Seeing new things" a far more enjoyable experience for you the driver, then you are a big part of the reason we need automous drivers.

Re: As it should be

[Knuckles]

Any second spent on this is obviously wasted

Re:As it should be

[swalve]

The word mile doesn't appear in that post.

Re:As it should be

[thegarbz]

Which is kind of why they get smooshed between cars while lanesplitting at speed quite often.

Re: As it should be

[swalve]

Incorrect.

Re:As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, I'd have thought putting tonnes of rocket fuel under your butt and igniting it would be safer than that.

Re: As it should be

[rpstrong]

Well, maybe he'd be better off flying a plane?

Re: As it should be

[Cederic]

$3k? I guess that's cheaper than getting Dignitas to do it.

Re: As it should be

[Catbeller]

I hope you don't mind me stealing this.

Re: As it should be

[Catbeller]

This is going to be a bloody lesson in hubris. Not that believers will look. SD cars already have been in plenty of accidents; it's just our rules for finding fault were written with humans in mind. The car that hits another car is almost always at fault, per human rules, and the SDs are being hit, so therefore no "mistakes" are tallied. Further investigation would be made by the SD car company, which is biased to not find error. The problem is robots can drive so stupidly that a normal human will hit the SDC, and suck up the blame. The real stats are being fudged.

Re: As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is to make decisions on the fly. It's not the destination, it's the ride.

Why are you fixated on the idea that you can't change destinations on the fly in an autonomous vehicle?

They're not fixated on that idea. You're fixated on the idea that there a destination to change from or to. If you go for the type of drive they're talking about, you're not driving to anywhere. You have no route in mind. You will drive, and sometimes you will come to a fork in the road, and sometimes you will turn left, and sometimes you will turn right. Sometimes there won't even be a fork; you'll just have a place to turn off the road, and you'll take it.

What you won't do is take time to think about which turn you're going to make. Bringing up a map to try and find an area to tap on that'll make the car head the way you decided in that instance to go will unavoidably remove that spontaneity. It'll also remove a good amount of the mystery; there's less appeal to "let's see what's over there" if your first step in getting there is to bring up a high-resolution, zoomable, labelled aerial map of the region.

Re: As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, 'cause we all have the disposable income and lack of ties to just switch homes or jobs whenever we want. No-one ever lives where they do out of necessity.

Re: As it should be

[fluffernutter]

Driving is an integral freedom of society. You raise the cost of driving,you make it more difficdt for people who are out of work to go to job interviews. You make it more difficultfor kids to get to school. The cost of driving does matter to people, doesn't matter if it is a right or not.

You might have some wacky insurance agencies where you are from, but I live in a place where rates are regulated. Manual cars won't become more dangerous just because of automation, they will slay the same and cost the same to fix so my rates will be the same.
Paying for driving insurance for a car you arent driving just seems like a bad deal to me. When cars are completely automated the company that makes the car would have to hold the liability policy and hope they can survive the lawsuits if their cars screw up.

Re: As it should be

[spire3661]

"Driving is an integral freedom of society"
Citation please.
We long ago decided that the Freedom of Travel clause in no way applies to how we regulate roads. What you are missing is there will come an inflection point where people with automated cars will demand we stop letting human drivers on the road with them for the inevitable accidents they cause. Every rage driver, or hot rodder is going to stick out like a sore thumb. What you fail to understand that at some point the ROAD will control your car, not itself. The Roadmaster computer will decided how fast you go, what turns you make to get where you want to go. It will intelligently route cars to avoid congestion. IT will take routes humans never would and still be faster. Its coming, much faster than you would ever imagine.

Re: As it should be

[fluffernutter]

Your dreams are not supported by fiscal realities.

Re: As it should be

[ShanghaiBill]

How can you be so confident that the sensors are right when it isn't even close to autonomous yet?

Autopilot doesn't handle intersections yet, but I fail to see why that would require any additional sensors.

What sensor will differentiate between a floating shopping bag and a flying rock?

Humans do it with their eyes, so an SDC should be able to do it with cameras. An ANN can differentiate a bag from a rock faster and more accurately than a human. And the SDC will certainly have a faster reaction time, usually by 1500 ms or more.

Google/Tesla/Uber have spent many thousands of hours on obstacle avoidance software. This is an area where SDCs are already far better than HDCs.

Re: As it should be

[fluffernutter]

Humans do it with their eyes, so an SDC should be able to do it with cameras.

Eyes see objects, cameras just see shapes and some programmer has to turn each one into an object. How are we to be guaranteed the AI in cars have been programmed to recognize this correctly?

Re:As it should be

[Ol Olsoc]

The word mile doesn't appear in that post.

And? So let us asume I am wrong, even though we've heard for years that it is th safest form of transportation. Since you took the effort to try to point out something to me, tell me what arameter airline travell is safest by.

Re: As it should be

[fluffernutter]

I've never seen a 10 year old car without some glitch in the electronics. How will that play out if the whole car is electronic? If electric, the battery will be crap by then. Cars will very quickly go from $20K to $0

Re: As it should be

[fluffernutter]

It won't be better than humans until they 'understand' all human situations. Currently they are trying one by one and they will take an eternity. They will program to avoid a white duck and then hit a brown duck. fix the brown duck issue and it will be a white rabbit. etc etc

Re: As it should be

[arth1]

Why are you fixated on the idea that you can't change destinations on the fly in an autonomous vehicle? In fact an autonomous vehicle is far more perfect for that. Just tell the vehicle you changed you mind go to X instead.

You don't appear to grasp the concept of no destination. Changing a destination like in "go to X instead" is still human transportation from source to destination. The nasty little word "to" is the killjoy.

Many people like taking their car, motorbike or horse for the joy and freedom of going "out there". It has been part of American life and culture for a long time, but is now perhaps dying with the new generation, who see cars as mere transportation and not a symbol of freedom?

Re:As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

Air travel is cheaper today (in dollars adjusted for inflation) than it was before deregulation.

Re: As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

stupid, troll, whatever. Testing with dummies on private test tracks until a certain confidence in safety is clearly the right way to go. The certain confidence being in the form of a checklist doesn't sound insane to me right now.

Re: As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

Eyes see objects, cameras just see shapes and some programmer has to turn each one into an object.

Untrue, for at least two reasons. First, eyes see shapes, same as cameras (well, technically both pick up individual of light and figure out what shapes they are, but that's a tangent.) Humans have to (individually) learn, over time, how to mentally turn each set of shapes into a particular object (imperfectly; there are these things called "optical illusions" you may read up on, it's a pretty obscure term so I can understand you not knowing about them). Second, nowadays machines train themselves on images, rather than having programmers painstakingly define how to differentiate every one. For someone who's being very active in saying the way SDCs are made is wrong, you seem to have entirely the wrong idea about how that process actually goes.

How are we to be guaranteed the AI in cars have been programmed to recognize this correctly?

Through testing. (This, and "it doesn't have to be perfect, just better than the average human", answer pretty much every question you've asked in your many, many comments, by the way. Maybe tape them to the side of your screen, and before you ask a question, see if either of those answer it, save yourself some time.)

But let's put all that aside. Let's say it really does require a team of programmers sat down building comprehensive libraries of plastic bags and rocks for cars to refer to, and that it's entirely impossible to test whether a computer can perform a task. Of course, that's still only really a damning point if that puts AI behind humans, so let's ask the same question of them. How do you guarantee humans in cars recognise those things (and all other things) correctly? Following on, if we find humans aren't sometimes not recognising that correctly, how do we correct that? Remember to factor in to your reasoning that, y'know, humans crash cars all the time.

Re:As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

Per billion mile is the standard. People travel with a destination that is a set distance away, not that is a set time away. Time is variable based on speed to cover that distance, which varies by mode of transport. Distance is the constant, so that's how you measure.

Put another way, if it takes me 2.5 times as long to walk someplace as it does to bike there, using these numbers, the fatality rate for that trip is the same. I'm not going to quit walking 20% of the way to the destination, so I have to expose my self to the risk for a larger length of time.

Re:As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the space shuttle kind of skews things. I would call orbit the destination, not part of the trip, because once you're there, your natural state of being is to stably orbit. You're not really traveling any more sitting in orbit than you are sitting on the ground. If you just look at the distance traveled to get into orbit and then to land, you've got a much more accurate stat.

Re: As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

I very much doubt that self-driving cars won't allow you to change course on the fly. If anything, "going for a ride" will be better when you don't have to concentrate on operating the car, and can instead take in the scenery or talk to the other passengers about where you feel like going next.

Re:As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

The word mile doesn't appear in that post.

And?

...And you just said, in the post they were replying to, "Does anyone note that the original post I replied to was by mile, so I replied by mile?".

Re: As it should be

[arth1]

I very much doubt that self-driving cars won't allow you to change course on the fly. If anything, "going for a ride" will be better when you don't have to concentrate on operating the car, and can instead take in the scenery or talk to the other passengers about where you feel like going next.

I think you too don't see the point, which is freedom to go for a ride without a where to go next. I fear that you, like a couple of others here, if someone asked you whether you'd go for a ride, you would say "sure, where to?". Which is not only missing the point, but ruining it.

I highly doubt there will be a self-driving car that will ever accept "just drive" or "out there". The legal implications if it ever drove you into a bad place you hadn't specifically requested is likely enough to kill that.

Re:As it should be

[Ol Olsoc]

The word mile doesn't appear in that post.

And?

...And you just said, in the post they were replying to, "Does anyone note that the original post I replied to was by mile, so I replied by mile?".

So what do you think the metric is asshole? Furlongs? Day length on Eurpoa? Size of your penis? Everyone who uses th e Airtrall is the safest form of travel uses, miles, just like the cites I gave.

Re: As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

You keep making these statements oas though they are factual certainty, but you haven't provided anything to back them up. Two questions, and do try to answer them: one, how do you know (not think, not suspect, know) your duck example is how things will happen? Two, how is that worse than the equivalent for humans (a human makes an error, an accident happens, and then absolutely nothing is, or even can be, be done to prevent other people from making the same error)?

Re: As it should be

[fedos]

So the guy who points out that autonomous cars will nearly eliminate the roadway deaths we see every year is being more insensitive to those killed by automobiles than the guy who's saying "I don't care if 30,000 people die from automobile collisions every year"?

Re: As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm an idiot with no imagination, therefore safer cars are bad."

Re: As it should be

[fedos]

The only way the fact that they're safer isn't obvious is if you completely ignore the evidence.

Re: As it should be

[Coren22]

You could even play a racing video game, and maybe someone will come up with the idea of having the video game's upcoming road be somewhat analogous to what is coming up, so it can be like those video roller coaster rides they have in the malls around here.

Re: As it should be

[Coren22]

Just compare the highway deaths to deaths by gun to see how f'd up our political process is.

https://www.thetrace.org/2015/...

Gun violence (including self inflicted) is 1/3 of highway deaths, but you would think it is the leading cause of death in the US based on how people treat it in politics. Driving isn't in the Bill of Rights, but gun ownership is; yet many politicians want to take our guns away while ignoring our cars!

BTW, my link is intentionally to a site that is inflammatory, I chose that to highlight my point, not because I agree with them in any way. I figured if anything, a site like that would have the highest figures for gun violence, and they didn't disappoint. They don't even make a distinction between intentional, self inflicted, and accidental deaths.

Re: As it should be

[Coren22]

Perhaps the radar sensor?

https://www.quora.com/What-kin...

Big money'd interest hate regulation...Surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not build your own roads Toyota? You don't need this Gubment, with their taxpayer funded ROADS, telling you how to test your cars.

Am I the only one confused?

[Anonymous Coward]

Part of the idea of reading a summary like those here on /. is that it's supposed to make getting the gist of a story *easier*. After reading this one, I am mystified as to what exactly is going on here. Sure, I didn't RTFA, but in this case, I'm not even sure what to expect if I do....

Have the Toyota executives stand in front

[Anonymous Coward]

Have the Toyota executives stand in front or the vehicle under test, then ask them what safety standards they want to use.

Now I know what self driving car not to buy

[HalAtWork]

Spoilers: Toyota

Re:Now I know what self driving car not to buy

[zlives]

their attempt at self accelerating cars was the first warning ;)

Re:Now I know what self driving car not to buy

[Anonymous Coward]

After the unintended acceleration fiasco (for which some engineers and management really should have been put to death instead of settling out of court), no one at all should be driving a Toyota, self-driving or otherwise.
Source:
http://www.safetyresearch.net/Library/Bookout_v_Toyota_Barr_REDACTED.pdf

tl;dr:
Here is a list of ways Toyota fucked up:
-Not following appropriate coding style (ie: 'spaghetti'/unmaintainable code, acknowledged by Toyota engineers in internal emails)
-Not following appropriate coding standards (ie: MISRA-C)
-No memory error detection and correction (which they told NASA they had, but "Toyota redacted or suggested redactions that were made in the NASA report almost everywhere the word EDAC appears it's redacted. So someone at Toyota knew that NASA thought that enough to redact from the public that false information.")
-Not mirroring all critical variables (which they initially claimed they did), in particular the critical kernel data structures had no protection, as well as the global throttle variables
-Task X responsible for a retarded amount of work: pedal angle reading, cruise control, throttle position, writing diagnostic troublecodes, failsafes
-Buffer overflows (at least one confirmed)
-Invalid pointers (pointers not checked for validity before being used)
-Existance of race conditions
-Using nested/recursive locks
-Unsafe type casting
-Insufficient parameter checking
-Stack overflows
-Excessive code complexity - 67 functions have cyclomatic complexity (MCC) over 50 (aka -'Untestable') (30 is a typical max), 12 functions have MCC over 100 (aka 'Unmaintainable')
-The function that calculates throttle position is MCC 146 and is 1,300 lines of code (executed by Task X)
-Uses recursive functions, which must not be used in critical applications according to MISRA-C
-Incorrect worst case stack size analysis - Toyota claims worst case usage was 41%, expert found worst case stack usage was 94% *NOT INCLUDING RECURSIVE FUNCTIONS!!!*
-Critical, unprotected kernel structures located directly after stack. IE: if stack overflows, critical kernel data is guaranteed to be lost.
-No runtime stack monitoring to ensure it doesn't overflow
-RTOS (named RX OSEK 850, after the OSEK API/Standards used by many automotive RTOSes) was not actually certified as compliant with the OSEK standard, but used by Toyota anyways
-MISRA-C rule violations (over 100 rules in total). NASA looked at 35 rules and found over 7,000 violations. Expert looked at all rules and found over 80,000 violations.
-Toyota claims their internal coding standards overlap ~50% with MISRA-C, but in reality, only 11 rules overlap. 5 of those rules were violated. In total at least a 3rd of their own internal standards were violated.
-Toyota cannot produce any records of bugs or bug fixing from testing, no bug tracking system was used
-Inadequate/rare/no peer code review
-Over 11,000 global variables
-Totally incorrect ("abysmal") watchdog usage: Run by hardware timer so operates if other parts of CPU are failing, doesn't check that critical tasks are running, throws away error codes sent to it by the OS from other tasks, allows for CPU to overload for 1.5 seconds before reset (a football field @ 60mph).
-Toyota didn't look at or review the monitor CPU code, though they claimed that there could be no software cause for UA
-Monitor CPU had all the requirements (electrical signals coming in and going out, adequate memory, CPU) to monitor brake pedal, throttle and to do something useful if there was a malfunction, but it just wasn't implemented due to lazyness or incompetence
-Many single points of failure
-Their failure mode analysis missed obvious things because they didn't follow any formal safety processes like MISRA
-Mix of Toyota code and Denso code
-"It cost them less to water down the watchdog then to upgrade the CPU to a fast enough CPU"
-If a fault occurs when there is pressure on the brake pedal, then applying further press

Re:Now I know what self driving car not to buy

[Narcocide]

This seems to deserve a +1 informative mod.

Re:Now I know what self driving car not to buy

[Ol Olsoc]

Spoilers: Toyota

And it seems like a States Rights issue to me. If Toyota doesn't want to sell their cars in Callyforniay, they are completely free to not do just that.

Problem solved.

Re:Now I know what self driving car not to buy

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather take the miniscule chance of my Toyota accelerating on its own than have to drive a fucking Shitbox American car that I have to repair monthly. Oh, and my Toyota will go into fucking neutral just fine at highway speeds, so I truly don't give a fuck about any of this.

Re: Now I know what self driving car not to buy

[rahvin112]

Silly goose, states rights only matter on some issues and safety regulation isn't one thats something the feds should stop states from doing. State rights apply to things like human rights not things that could cost businesses money.

Re:Now I know what self driving car not to buy

[Tablizer]

- Existence of race conditions

Toyota's had enough of those, for sure

Re:Now I know what self driving car not to buy

[goose-incarnated]

Brilliant and informative post. I do have a few questions myself:

-Invalid pointers (pointers not checked for validity before being used)

How do you check a pointer for validity? You can only check for NULLness, right?

-No runtime stack monitoring to ensure it doesn't overflow

How do you check this? Most uCs don't have a valgrind (although the newer Atmels have MPEs) and I'm not sure how hard it is to add stack canaries to the compiler.

Re:Now I know what self driving car not to buy

[Waccoon]

Over 11,000 global variables

Whoa, wait... was the entire entertainment system controlled by a single process or what? If that's just just globals, how can EMU software possibly be this large?

Fantastic write-up, BTW. People like you are why I still visit Slashdot.

Re:Now I know what self driving car not to buy

[Anonymous Coward]

You can also check that a pointer is within a given range. other than checking that (and the implied null), you can't really check a pointer for anything more without following it.

Re: Now I know what self driving car not to buy

[Ol Olsoc]

Silly goose, states rights only matter on some issues and safety regulation isn't one thats something the feds should stop states from doing. State rights apply to things like human rights not things that could cost businesses money.

Actually, the states rights people tell us that anyhiing not speeled out in the constitution as a power to the federal guvmint is not allowed by the federal guvmint, therefore since autonomous cars are not mentioned, therefore it's a states rights issue.

Yeah, yer right - I'm being silly.

Re:Now I know what self driving car not to buy

[orgelspieler]

People like you are why I still visit Slashdot.

I don't know... that AC guy sure posts a lot of crap, too.

Re:Now I know what self driving car not to buy

[Lost Race]

Oh, and my Toyota will go into fucking neutral just fine at highway speeds

Manual transmission? Their automatic would probably lock up along with the throttle and brake when the controller crashes.

Re:Now I know what self driving car not to buy

[rpstrong]

-Totally incorrect ("abysmal") watchdog usage: Run by hardware timer so operates if other parts of CPU are failing, doesn't check that critical tasks are running, throws away error codes sent to it by the OS from other tasks, allows for CPU to overload for 1.5 seconds before reset (a football field @ 60mph).

Is a football field 44 yards long? Just how expert was this testimony?

Laws!

[fluffernutter]

"Laws are making us less profitable, that can't be right! Laws are only supposed to help us profit!"

Re:Laws!

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't a law. It's sour grapes on California's part for losing Toyota.

Re:Laws!

[Ol Olsoc]

This isn't a law. It's sour grapes on California's part for losing Toyota.

You against the rights of teh individual state to pass laws that are not provided to the federal Government by the constitution?

States rights baby, it isn't just to make mandatory carry and flying of the confederate flag the law.

And Toyota is completely free to ignore it and not sell their vehicles in California.. The marketplace. If you don't like onerous regulations, refuse to sell Toyotas to California citizens. And not a regulation at all to hinder you.

Re:Laws!

[fluffernutter]

Don't these regulations apply to everyone?

Hilary Cain

[Anonymous Coward]

What are the chances

Re: Hilary Cain

[Anonymous Coward]

My thoughts exactly. Thought it must be e joke.

Recently had a car kill pedestrians in Seattle

[WillAffleckUW]

If it had been an autonomous vehicle, it would have killed hundreds, not just one woman.

Sounds like a good idea to have oversight, IMHO.

Re:Recently had a car kill pedestrians in Seattle

[Anonymous Coward]

A car? Or a driver?

Re:Recently had a car kill pedestrians in Seattle

[WillAffleckUW]

The news report said a car. I'm thinking it was named Christine.

As someone who has skimmed TFA...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have spent almost 40 seconds reading this article, and though I have absolutely no familiarity with any of the safety test protocols, new or old, Toyota's self-driving program, or any idea of what I'm talking about, I do think I should post with a very strong opinion that this is total bullshit. I can't believe they would act that way. This is all about lining their pocketbooks. A total outrage, and I can't believe they would stoop this low and make this statement at such a late hour in the process.

Don't test in California?

[sinij]

If you don't like it, then don't test in California.

Re:Don't test in California?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, I don't really get what the deal here is. Just test somewhere else.
If that means that you are unsure of how it works in California, just disable the function when the car is there.

RULE #1

[Anonymous Coward]

NHTSA gets a copy of any and all commented source code.
If you don't like it, try selling your ideas in China.
Toyota didn't come clean with the "unintended acceleration" bug.
This time - when someone gets killed - the code review should start the same day.

Re:RULE #1

[Anonymous Coward]

NHTSA gets a copy of any and all commented source code.
If you don't like it, try selling your ideas in China.
Toyota didn't come clean with the "unintended acceleration" bug.
This time - when someone gets killed - the code review should start the same day.

I hate to break it to you, but there is a deep learning revolution in the software being deployed for tasks like self-driving cars.

Basically, all programs look pretty similar (cascade of convolutions and weight reduction layers).You get very little information about potential bugs looking at the source code on such a system, as it really is the training that makes all the difference.

The short story is that, we humans really don't know exactly how these deep-learning systems work, only that experimentally, they seem to work much better than anything we know how to write software to do, so we are using them with greater frequency now for many classical AI tasks (from language translation, and image caption generation, to more recently self-driving cars).

At some point we will be forced to measure these AI systems, by their pedigree (e.g., the "schooling" the have received), and the actual testing they have passed. This is not unlike how humans are (inaccurately) measured. That isn't today, but it might be coming sooner than you think...

Think of it this way, you don't go under a code review of your brain when you crash a car, because nobody understands how a human brain works...

Re:RULE #1

[fluffernutter]

First of all, if they were really learning anything then there would be no need for Tesla to shift emphasis from mobile eye to radar after the trailer crash or any requirement for Tesla to respond at all; the car should determine that on its own. Secondly no one is saying companies can't test, just that they can't test on public roads. They can build a fake city if that's what they want to do.

Re:RULE #1

[Anonymous Coward]

That Tesla is dead, how could it learn anything more than it's headless driver could?

Re:RULE #1

[uncqual]

I think shirts with the standard red octagonal STOP symbol may become very popular with pedestrians -- although, maybe that would just cause the cars to begin to ignore STOP signs that looked like shirts - perhaps because they were slightly bent. That may not end well.

Re:RULE #1

[0100010001010011]

At some point we will be forced to measure these AI systems, by their pedigree (e.g., the "schooling" the have received), and the actual testing they have passed. This is not unlike how humans are (inaccurately) measured. That isn't today, but it might be coming sooner than you think...

What do you think you're doing when you solve a Google captchas? Google is running hundreds of thousands of video through AIs analyzing every frame.

Remember "Select all the road signs" a while ago? Now they seem to be on to billboards. You train it on a set of data and run it back on the hundreds of thousands of hours of data they have from the Google street view project.

Re:RULE #1

[fluffernutter]

I thought they were connected to the hive until moment of impact.

Re:RULE #1

[fluffernutter]

Either that, or they start thinking the road is by every stop sign, whether it is on a shirt or not.

Re:RULE #1

[fluffernutter]

These are parlour tricks compared to where they need to be.

Re:RULE #1

[Anonymous Coward]

If ISO 26262 is anything like the other machine safety standards it would be very tedious to get the kind of AI you are describing certified.
It would require you to list likely fault scenarios and then go through the training data and show that the AI behaves in a safe manner in those cases, independent of previous states.
It is probably easier to ditch the training data and write your AI without self learning.

Possibly you can get away with only using such an AI for image recognition / sign interpretation and claim that it doesn't have to work properly for safe operation.
Instead you would have to show safe operation with other sensors and only rely on the camera for compliance with traffic laws.
(Following the law and driving safely isn't the same thing, there are plenty of cases where you can speed and/or ignore stop signs without endangering anyone.)

Re:RULE #1

[goose-incarnated]

This time - when someone gets killed - the code review should start the same day.

Code reviews do not help with machine-learned algorithms. The algorithm is opaque even to the developer. They should not be using machine-learning and/or neural nets to steer cars. The resulting systems cannot be reviewed for accuracy and reproducibility. They can only be tested.

Not one business to remain!

[SuperKendall]

The government of California will not be satisfied until the last evil "business" has been driven from the state, and all that is left are happy taxpayers. Well, taxpayers anyway...

Re:Not one business to remain!

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that people and businesses keep coming.

Re:Not one business to remain!

[Gavagai80]

You just posted that to a business running on a web server in California. Yeah, with a GDP of $2.5 trillion we sure are running short of businesses. Let's scrap all safety rules in a desperate attempt to increase their profits.

Re:Not one business to remain!

[Tablizer]

government of California will not be satisfied until the last evil "business" has been driven from the state...

I'm surprised they don't test in the 3rd world where fewer formally care if people die from mistakes. I'm not condoning it, only putting on my Profit Hat to ponder it from Toyota's perspective.

I do think CA should accept some degree of risk to spur new businesses, but if preventable problems such as those related to safe coding practices are reasonable, then I believe Toyota should be expected to take such precautions.

Re:Not one business to remain!

[liquid_schwartz]

Actually there is a migration out of California among US citizens. While the overall population is growing due to immigration , both illegal and legal, this is a case of losing people that you want and not getting a replacement of equal value. The business climate overall is down for most things. The hubris of California and large cities there like SF, LA, etc is amazing. I look forward to the fall.

Re:Not one business to remain!

[goose-incarnated]

government of California will not be satisfied until the last evil "business" has been driven from the state...

I'm surprised they don't test in the 3rd world where fewer formally care if people die from mistakes.

Because the traffic conditions are far from perfect, and the state-of-the-art in SDC battles to handle anything but near-perfect conditions.

The 15 points

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is a list of the 15 points. They seem pretty broad and vague, but maybe the 116 page original document nails them down.

Why are you looking at me that way? It could happen.

Re:The 15 points

[fnj]

Contrary to most of the morons posting here (I'm not talking about you), the 15 points make eminent sense to me. Presumably, here is what the twits think:
1) Documented process for data collection and sharing. Hell no, let's have a lackadaisical process and not share anything.
2) Maintenance of privacy. Nope, leak everything all over the place.
3) Systematic design for safety. Why? Duct tape it together.
4) Cybersecurity. Why should it be any more secure than crappy mobile, desktop, and server security are now?
5) Human machine interface standards. Are you kidding?
6) Crash worthiness. But we got the Ford Pinto engineers cheap.
7) Proper user education and training. Naw, let 'em figure it all out themselves.
8) Registration and certification. Don't interfere with free reign for selfish robber barons.
9) Post crash behavior. Just have it self-incinerate as quickly and quietly as possible; hush things up.
10) Adherence to federal, state, and local laws. To hell with all that interference.
11) Ethical considerations. What are ethics?
12) Operational design domain. What do you mean? Anything we build can tackle any possible conditions.
13) Object detection and response. A loud horn sounded more or less constantly should be enough.
14) Transition to fallback mode in case of a problem. Just open the throttle wide, lock the steering, and disable the brakes.
15) Validation of methods. We don't think we need to validate anything or account for any of our design decisions.

They're right. This regulation shit is all unfair and anti-free-enterprise. Get out of my way.

Re:The 15 points

[sabbede]

But how do you check off those items without doing a load of testing to hammer out the details?

SO, they are worried about making their cars safe?

[WindBourne]

Seriously, this is interesting that they object to having a safety portion done, but then want the right to test all over our roads.
Tesla passed it. Why can not Toyota, Volvo, Mercedes, etc?

Why don't you test the cars in Tokyo?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's that you say, the Japanese government won't let you?

Boo hoo hoo.

Made in Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

Young Doc: No wonder this circuit failed. It says "Made in Japan".

Marty McFly: What do you mean, Doc? All the best stuff is made in Japan.

Young Doc: Unbelievable.

Hey Lunkhead - "Before testing them"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Before testing them". Not before selling them. Before *testing* them.

Re:Hey Lunkhead - "Before testing them"

[Anonymous Coward]

That "testing" is on regular roads filled with regular drivers. No one is stopping them from testing on private tracks. You're the lunkhead if you think the general public deserves no protection.

Re:Hey Lunkhead - "Before testing them"

[goose-incarnated]

"Before testing them". Not before selling them. Before *testing* them.

They want to run their tests on real roads with real people; they want to put at risk innocent bystanders who are not in the least bit remotely interested in their product.

Before putting your untested crap on the road to drive amongst uninterested third parties, they *should* be validating the shit out of the system.

Real roads and real people are not there for your personal use as guinea pigs.

Safety is not the issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again people are overlooking the point. This is yet another attempt by California to legislate laws for the whole nation. Banking on the threat of non-sales in California to force businesses to comply.

The choices are clear. If you want to comply then do so. If you don't, then just have a disclaimer in your ads that "Offer void by Democrats in California" and if your car is nifty enough I guarantee those laws will be withdrawn once the recall petitions start flowing.

Re: Safety is not the issue

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are saying that California should lower its standards and let testing occur there at potential risk to its inhabitants, potentially incurring costs for California, to make it easier to sell the final product in other parts of the USA?

Don't forget to look at all sides

[FrozenGeek]

If (well, let's be realistic - in reality) the cars are not properly secured, they will be hackable. That means they will be hacked. Imagine a car on the highway suddenly jamming on its brakes. Or a car suddenly racing down a crowded pedestrian mall. Or an extremist government deciding to limit how far you may drive in a given year. Or limiting where you may drive. Much easier to do so if the cars are all controlled by computers. Until Snowden, people called me paranoid. Now, not so much.

Re:Don't forget to look at all sides

[Tablizer]

hackable...an extremist government deciding to limit how far you may drive in a given year. Or limiting where you may drive.

"Kim Jong won't let me shop for jeans, OMG, the Horror!"

Don't like it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't like the rules Toyota? Then build your own fucking roads and test your cars, preferably somewhere far away from where I need to drive.

Also....

[Anonymous Coward]

A Tesla costs around $75,000 for the base model.

So a luxury car (with the bonus of a luxury tax) that costs three times as much as a traditional car, and then $3000 more for an autopilot that isn't an autopilot. ShanghaiBill is right, that is nowhere near "double".

What the 15 points actually are -

[GrpA]

https://www.transportation.gov...

The Safety Assessment would cover the following areas:
  Data Recording and Sharing
  Privacy
  System Safety
  Vehicle Cybersecurity
  Human Machine Interface
  Crashworthiness
  Consumer Education and Training
  Registration and Certification
  Post-Crash Behavior
  Federal, State and Local Laws
  Ethical Considerations
  Operational Design Domain
  Object and Event Detection and Response
  Fall Back (Minimal Risk Condition)
  Validation Methods

GrpA

Is this WEAKENING the requirments?

[Anonymous Coward]

"instead of self-driving cars being required to be tested by a third-party, as in the original proposal."
This sounds like instead of independent-3rd party testing, the automaker will only have to self-certify. Self-sertifying is never a problem /s

Preposterous?

[argStyopa]

Are you angry because it's probably aimed at your company?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ji...

Automakers With The Lowest (And Highest) Recall Rates ...Toyota/Lexus/Scion led the pack for the second year in a row with nearly 5.3 million cars and trucks recalled, followed by the Chrysler Group at around 4.7 million and Honda/Acura with nearly 2.8 million models recalled. While these would seem to be staggering numbers, as NHTSA points out theyâ(TM)re not weighed against sales, and as such arenâ(TM)t necessarily a predictor of a given model lineâ(TM)s inherent safety or its long-term reliability.

A critical part failure in a human controlled vehicle is bad enough.
I submit that there are at least an order of magnitude more potential points of failure in an autonomous vehicle. Perhaps it's wise to move a little more carefully before this becomes widespread.

A lot has to change

[Chewbacon]

I live in a city where road work never fucking ends and the workers get really creative routing traffic through these work zones. It has gotten to the point I think there is no standard other than "make it work." On the rare occasion, I'm scratching my head trying to figure out what the hell I'm supposed to do, but many people end up fucking it up. So it -is- preposterous unless a lot of things change and strict adherence to those changes occur.

Re: Long way to go

[hackwrench]

But that long way to go does not specify a specific timeframe.

Re: Long way to go

[fluffernutter]

They're still trying to hard-code exceptions for real life, there is no more 'learning' than there was in 1985. So judging by that rate, the timeline is 'never, at a safe affordable level'.

Toyota - 10,000 Global Variables Incorporated

[obscuro]

When someone tells you they want safety checks on your computerized platform there are few on the planet less qualified to complain than Toyota or, as I like to call them 10,000 Global Variables Incorporated.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9643551

Re: Long way to go Evidence?

[hackwrench]

What evidence have you seen of this?