California Says Autonomous Cars Don't Need Human Drivers (bloomberg.com)

Currently, California law requires that all self-driving cars used for testing purposes be done with a human behind the wheel, so that they can take control if necessary. While California has been fairly strict on how self-driving cars are to be used in the state, they appear to be relaxing several of the rules. "The state's Department of Motor Vehicles released proposed regulations Friday for autonomous vehicles, dropping an earlier requirement that a human driver had to be present while testing on public roads," reports Bloomberg. "The DMV also backed down on a previous rule that vehicles needed a steering wheel and pedals for the operator to take back control." From the report: "When we think of driverless vehicles they can either have conventional controls, which are steering wheels, pedals, things like that, or they cannot," said California DMV Chief Counsel Brian Soublet during a conference call with reporters. If companies test vehicles without conventional controls, they have to show the California DMV that they have approval from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, he added. NHTSA said in early 2016 that self-driving software systems, not just humans, can be considered drivers. "If California was going to keep that level of development activity in the state, what they did was necessary and timely," said Eric Noble, president of The CarLab, an automotive consulting firm. "They kind of had to do it because at some point manufacturers can't move autonomous vehicles forward without getting controls out of cars." The proposed regulations have a 45-day public comment period that ends April 24. That will be followed by a public hearing. During Friday's conference call, the California DMV said the rules should be completed by the end of the year.

Comments

Good

[kqs]

This seems like an important next step. Expecting even a trained human to take over with only a few seconds (or less) leeway is crazy and cannot work.

I expect that these regulations will evolve a bit as we see which self-driving car developers can handle this and which ones cannot. There will likely be a few accidents, hopefully none serious. But since these cars have no egos and no temper, they're likely to drive far safer than the average human.

Re:Good

[elrous0]

Yeah, what could possibly go wrong, right?

Re:Good

[religionofpeas]

Expecting even a trained human to take over with only a few seconds (or less) leeway is crazy and cannot work,

True, but there are plenty of circumstances where there is more time for the human to intervene. Suppose the road is blocked somewhere, and there's somebody directing traffic and letting people drive over the sidewalk, or on the wrong lane, or explaining how to make a detour, or tell the driver to wait for the pilot car. Plenty of situations are too difficult for an autonomous car to handle, but not imminently dangerous, assuming that the self driving car is smart enough to stop when it notices the road is blocked.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots could go wrong, many specific to self driving cars in particular. But things go wrong without AI at the wheel too as most humans are terrible at driving.

Re:Good

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Fortunately, while the new regulation is going to say that there doesn't have to be a human driver in the car, it doesn't actually prevent him from being actually present. And concerning changes in route topology, chances are that if information on such changes is distributed using an electronic system, all connected autonomous vehicles would react way in advance of most, if not all human drivers. Even on-site personnel could communicate driving information using some simple broadcasting beacon that vehicles could have a receiver for. After all, how much does analogical WiFi hardware cost?

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Drive over the sidewalk? Where the hell do you live? Over here they just block the entire street and tell you to take a detour elsewhere, because, you know, safety of the people?

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs ryt?

I just wish I was the one getting the phat lobbiest moneys to make these things happen.

Re:Good

[Mr D from 63]

The regulations would be smart to impose some restrictions for vehicles operating with no driver. One of them could a an successful operating history with a driver. Speed limits should also be considered. We may not want driver-less cars on the road doing, say, 40 mph + when there are zero demonstrations of technology being able to do that safely.

Even Tesla, the self proclaimed leader in this technology, is struggling to get the simplest things to work reliably; http://bgr.com/2017/03/02/tesl...

Re:Good

[amiga3D]

Most? I think it's not most are terrible. Some are terrible, some are bad, some are so-so, some are pretty fair, some are good and some are excellent. Having a self driving car suddenly lose it's capability to judge where the center of the road is would be equivalent to a stone drunk human for example. As long as it happens less often then you get a wasted driver on a per mile basis I'd guess it's safer. Still, we're talking about a "testing" program here. If I'm a company that wants to develop and build self-driving cars I'd be a little cautious about bad press from an accident involving a car with no operator. One single death due to a bad autonomous mistake will over reach the nearly 10K dead in 2014 from drunk drivers.

Re:Good

[vtcodger]

"Expecting even a trained human to take over with only a few seconds (or less) leeway is crazy"

Let me see if if I have this straight. An autonomous car is doing something nutty, like following the vehicle ahead of it into a gas station at excessive speed? And you think the way to handle that situation is to trust the car?

Re:Good

[ColdWetDog]

'I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that.'

Re:Good

[religionofpeas]

I expect self driving cars to be hitting the road well before such technology is adopted. It also takes time to set it up and program it with the proper information, in case a road is blocked suddenly.

Re:Good

[arth1]

Fortunately, while the new regulation is going to say that there doesn't have to be a human driver in the car, it doesn't actually prevent him from being actually present.

When opening for the autonomous car not having controls for the human, it doesn't much matter whether the human isn't prevented from being there.
The first time a cop tries to direct traffic around an accident, and there either isn't a driver in the car, or there aren't controls in the car for the driver to operate, this will be challenged. If it led to severe delays for important people, I expect it to not survive.

Re:Good

[ColdSam]

If you are just labels to a Bell curve then, sure, that works for everything, but it is meaningless. You've not contradicted the idea that most human drivers, by the standards we would like for operating as 2 or 3 ton vehicle, are terrible. Most will get into several significant accidents in their lifetime.

You are also completely wrong about a self driving car not finding the center line being like a stone cold drunk. That car may have little clue where the line is, but it will STILL not just run over a pedestrian or crash into another car or a fast moving tree. It also will be able to safely just stop, if it gets too confused, unlike those thousands of drunks.

Where you are correct is that one fatal accident for an autonomous car will be magnified by the press and the luddites. People are idiots. That is a reason to educate them, not to fear technology or needlessly delay its lifesaving potential.

Re:Good

[coastwalker]

A machine is likely to be safer at driving humans in very little time. I have been driving for more than 30 years and can attest that for at least the first 5 years I took too many risks and for the last five I probably have not been quick thinking enough for dynamic traffic situations. Society does not give a toss how safe you think you can drive, all society cares about is the total cost of road traffic accidents. Automatic driving is so close you can smell it.

Re:Good

[amiga3D]

I really think it's about that close too. What surprises me is that there isn't more movement to eliminating the pilot in commercial aircraft. It's to the point that the biggest threat to passenger safety is the pilot. We've seen at least two major catastrophes that were basically suicidal actions and that's leaving out the 9/11 attacks. Then there are the ones that are overtired or over medicated or intoxicated. I have the illusion of safety when in an automobile because I have control. If I die it's my fault and somehow I'm okay with that. When on a plane my life is in the hands of a total stranger. I'd feel just as comfortable if it was a computer system.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea! forget about "people are idiots" being the idiot to blame. Let the robots take over that blaming task for you! They can't be blamed for small glitches of oh let's say running someone over.

Re:Good

[Neuronwelder]

Mmm!.. human omelets tastes good!

Re:Good

[dryeo]

What surprises me is that there isn't more movement to eliminating the pilot in commercial aircraft. It's to the point that the biggest threat to passenger safety is the pilot.

Problem is that the autopilot is still not good enough to replace pilots in all circumstances. We've had Airbus crashes where the autopilot overrode the pilots, resulting in hundreds of deaths. We've had situations where the pilot has saved hundreds of lives such as the one that landed in the E river or the Gimli glider. Perhaps the autopilot would have landed safely in the river but in the case of the Gimli glider, officially the plane could not glide (luckily the captain was a gliding enthusiast) and the copilot remembered the abandoned (unmapped) airfield where they safely landed.
A car can simply roll to a stop when the autopilot gets confused, an airplane, not so much.
Personally I'd still like the option of a manual override when the car gets confused in an intersection and just stops or worse decides to believe the GPS about the non-existent road.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the thing. There's no reason to be removing the controls yet, or ever.

Cars are driven a collective amount each year to get more than enough safety information to know what modifications need to be done to improve safety and to estimate the impact. AI cars are nowhere near that point, it would take decades at the current rate to catch up with just a short period of driving.

Leave the controls in the cars and leave a driver in the car for the time being until these cars have racked up enough miles that they've run through the gamut of driving conditions that a car can reasonably expect to face. Then, talk about removing the mandated driver and after that consider whether we need the controls at all.

Removing the mandated driver because you're wanting to get rid of the controls is moronic. Considering that planes are fly by wire now and cars are migrating in that direction already, there's no reason why they can't have manual controls and be completely autonomous.

Re:Good

[jcr]

There's very little difference between driving at 40 mph and 120 mph when the car is autonomous. Consider the speed of today's CPUs.

I'd be glad to let the car drive itself and get much shorter trip times.

-jcr

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Protip, just because someone had an idea doesn't make it inevitable, nor good.

Re:Good

[dgatwood]

Most? I think it's not most are terrible. Some are terrible, some are bad, some are so-so, some are pretty fair, some are good and some are excellent.

... at any given moment. The problem is that every driver is terrible at least some of the time. People get distracted (both externally and internally), fatigued, can look in only one direction at a time, can't see in certain directions from the driver's seat, etc., all of which can effectively mimic impaired reaction time just as easily as drunk driving, albeit for a shorter period of time. Fortunately, most of the time, you don't need fast reaction time to drive safely.

Re:Good

[amiga3D]

I think a few more suicidal pilots and the idea of computer control might become more attractive.

Re:Good

[Mr D from 63]

I makes a difference if you are trying to get out of its way.

Re:Good

[Cinnamon Beige]

Expecting even a trained human to take over with only a few seconds (or less) leeway is crazy and cannot work.

Except that's pretty much precisely what driving instructors do--in vehicles that are intended for such, they even have a break pedal on their side of the car, because in situations where there's 'only a few seconds (or less) leeway' the best response is rather reliably "HIT THE !@#$ BRAKES." Occasionally, this is combined with reaching over and grabbing the steering wheel, and trust me, they can do it. (I learned because power steering went out on a curve--he knew what to do, and I...learned on the fly. That first time, though, I needed the help getting the wheel over far enough & fast enough.)

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

NVIDIA has made some interesting progress around detours.

When a driver-less car (eventually) ends up in a hit-and-run, who do we send the police to arrest? There is no driver ⦠so the owner? The programmer? The manager of the programmer? The board of directors of the company that manufactured/programmed/tested the vehicle? Or do we just impound the car for "going rogue"?

I don't think we're going to have no-controls driverless cars anytime soon, unless the mega-corps win, and such accidents are uniformly blamed on the victim.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, yes, this is good. It's good because people will DIE, and, with any luck, the entire 'self-driving car meme' will die with them, and be declared ILLEGAL. It'll be bad for the people who will have to die just to prove the 'technology' is bullshit and should never have been allowed to exist in the first place, and bad for their surviving family, whose lives will become a living hell, having to spend years and years sueing the living daylights out of the manufacturers and the State of California for allowing this nonsense to happen, but they're all just, sadly, collateral damage. Sometimes sacrifices have to be made in order for people to see the truth: There is no such thing as proper 'AI', so-called 'self driving cars' are a MEME, and a destructive one. and EVERY LAST ONE OF YOU have been FOOLED by it.

Meanwhile, you all whine and complain about 'bad drivers' and 'humans can't operate a motor vehicle safely', but you don't realize the TRUTH: Driver education and training has been SABOTAGED for DECADES now, and with an influx of immigrants from 3rd-world countries, the problem is WORSE, because they're driving cars around and have insufficient skills in doing so. Just like TV news, only the WORST things get aired, so of COURSE it makes human drivers look bad!

What we SHOULD be doing is, is enacting reforms of driver education and training. People will ALWAYS be the best drivers, but only if you educate and train them properly! We have NO IDEA how actual cognition works, not even close, yet we're trying to build CARS that can do what a human brain can do? LOL that's complete and total bullshit and you're a FOOL if you believe all the hype to the contrary! Enjoy your horrifying, terrifying DEATH in a box on wheels with NO CONTROLS as it slams into stationary objects a high speed and KILLS YOU, you FOOLS! Meanwhile those of us who are GOOD drivers and NOT STUPID will SHUN your bullshit meme-cars and NOT get killed -- and we'll all LAUGH at how stupid you all were.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

What surprises me is that there isn't more movement to eliminating the pilot in commercial aircraft.

They have. In a manner. On the bleeding edge aircraft pilots are described more as aircraft managers rather than pilots. Things like fuel management, weather management, etc. Slotting into the right lane is all done via voice radio still. Etc. There is a lot more to running an aircraft than just flying stick.

But note that is only on the really new stuff. Older aircraft do a lot less that people think. Then there is meatbags irrational faith that other meatbags are better than machines. So there is some PR keeping pilots up front.

Re:Good

[ColdSam]

Case in point. You contradict yourself when you say that the best response is "HIT THE BRAKES". Doing that while going through a turn (or on ice or whatever) is often the last thing you want to do. A passenger not paying attention (or only casually) will cause a lot of accidents by such panic braking. Very different than a driving instructor who is supposed to be paying careful attention all the time.

Re:Good

[lsatenstein]

Do self driving cars need driver permits and insurance. Will they be allowed to drive at night or in the rain?

Re:Good

[Aqualung812]

There's very little difference between driving at 40 mph and 120 mph when the car is autonomous.

Yet, there is a HUGE difference on how much kinetic energy a self-propelled 1,500kg projectile will transfer at 40 mph and 120 mph.

The point is, until they get them well-proven, (and they will, in time), let's limit the damage a minor programming error can cause.

After that, yes, let's start zipping down the highway at 180mph in a NASCAR-esqe parade only inches from the car in front. Automatic cars can join the high-speed lane for the bulk of their trip and cleanly permit cars to leave and join the train.

Re:Good

[kqs]

Do self driving cars need driver permits and insurance. Will they be allowed to drive at night or in the rain?

States are developing certification systems, so yes, there will be "driver permits", though I suspect they will be for the sensor/software combo rather than "per physical computer/driver".

All cars on the road need insurance, so yes. Self-driving cars will make many fewer mistakes than humans, but certainly not zero mistakes.

I don't see why they wouldn't be allowed to drive at night or in the rain? I mean, LIDAR is insanely better than human eyes in the dark. Rain is a challenge, but it's as hard for humans as computers. Plus computers, unlike humans, will be smart enough to slow down when visibility or road conditions are bad.

Re: Good

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as we keep the computers happy and don't ask them paradoxical questions.

Its too early IMO

[NotInHere]

I think its too early for autonomous cars to drive around without drivers. Imagine what happens when an accident occurs. Then the technology will be demonized. That would be horrible. Only allow autonomous cars to drive around without drivers once you are certain they are not just better than the average driver, but than 95% of all human drivers.

But I guess its like with most people who have a risky driving style: they say "who cares", until something horrible happens due to that carelessness, and then they are either unable to say anything any more, or are terribly sad.

Re:Its too early IMO

[elrous0]

I have a friend who is a truck driver who worries about driverless trucks one day putting him out of work. I laughed and told him that the first time some driverless 80,000-pound semi has a software glitch and piles full speed into a busload of kids, his future employment will be secured forever.
 

Re:Its too early IMO

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG, you mean if the technology doesn't work and people give it a bad reputation because it doesn't work that's somehow "horrible"? Apologies for driving you at full speed into the side of a truck, it'll be fixed in the next software update.

Whoever said that override controls are a dumb idea is right though. When flying an airplane, an autopilot can automatically disconnect itself when it decides it can't handle something. If this happens at altitude it's no big deal. Near the ground, the pilots are expecting it and are paying absolute attention to flying whether or not they're planning on taking over. Driving is different than flying in that most of the time you're in proximity to things you don't want to be in proximity to when traveling at high speed so more attention is required more of the time. If you have to pay attention all the time in case your car automation disconnects then there's no point in having it.

Also, where's the explicit law stating that DUI laws don't apply to cars without active driver controls? They're going to conveniently forget that one and then enterprising law enforcement and prosecutors will be out with their bullshit interpretation of laws. Remember folks we live in a country where you can get a DUI for sitting still in your turned off car in a parking lot. Don't underestimate the stupidity of all this.

Re:Its too early IMO

[Junta]

I wonder though how much that is currently done with big trucks will become smaller vehicles, but more numerous. One of the big motivators for piling tons of stuff onto one truck is because each vehicle needs an expensive driver.

Now there are other motivators, but in scenarios where the big truck is used because only because you need to amortize the large expense of a human driver, you'll probably see smaller things on the road when/if autonomous cargo transport happens.

Re:Its too early IMO

[GuB-42]

Well, airplanes still have pilots even though they pretty much fly themselves. And airline pilot told me that the reason he is in the plane is mostly for passengers to feel safe.
They are just starting making conductorless trains even though in many cases the conductor does nothing but push a button. There is value in having a human on board that goes beyond operating the vehicle.

Re:Its too early IMO

[Anonymous Coward]

If not now, then when?

Re:Its too early IMO

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, cargo ships to be replaced by autonomous dingys, since there are no economies of scale when moving freight around ...

Re:Its too early IMO

[NotInHere]

OMG, you mean if the technology doesn't work and people give it a bad reputation because it doesn't work that's somehow "horrible"?

No, of course the reasoning is sound, but it would be horrible overall if the technology would be demonized and all its development on it abandoned before it even had the chance to mature because some people thought it already was mature enough to completely go driverless.

Re:Its too early IMO

[Imrik]

The law is saying that the car itself can be considered a driver, so unless you're spiking the gas tank I don't think it'll get a DUI.

Re:Its too early IMO

[kimvette]

Truck drivers will still be needed for the last mile delivery. I don't think shippers will come up with a robot nimble and clever enough to deliver appliances and fitness equipment into homes (and unpack and install them when contracted to).

However this reminds me of our heading toward a 60% unemployment rate due to automation (store checkouts, stock clerks, fast food jobs, etc. are gradually going away. This is evident in many NYC pharmacy/convenience stores, for example) - what are we going to do about this? If we were smart we would be expanding socialism in a huge way, not dismantling the feeble socialist safety nets we now have in place as the GOP is hell-bent on doing (nice Christian family values they have there, with their shitting on the poor, disabled, and sick!).

Anyway... back to the topic: I don't see the need for last-mile delivery jobs going away any time soon because of the complexity of on-premises delivery. Eventually, though, robotics and AI will advance to the point where even those problems are figured out, and once those problems are figured out (how to get a robot to navigate bulky packages through odd stairwells and hallways, etc.) they will likely do a better job than humans. Honestly though... I'd kind of prefer it in some ways, because artificial delays like "we do that route only one day a week" and the first available delivery date is three weeks out, when the package has been within a few miles of you for a week already will go away. They'll just send out a robot with your package as soon as they arrive at the warehouse. (Today, freight shipping still sucks warm sweaty donkey balls; ecommerce hasn't revolutionized freight delivery times like it has small package delivery)

Re:Its too early IMO

[Applehu Akbar]

"One of the big motivators for piling tons of stuff onto one truck is because each vehicle needs an expensive driver."

No, it's because freight containers come in two standard sizes, with road trucks being sized accordingly.

Re:Its too early IMO

[Junta]

There's a balance.

FedEx/UPS Trucks driving over a long route may lose out to more point to point operation of small vehicles. A large chunk of the manufacturing capacity of a nation going to a particular port is another thing.

Re:Its too early IMO

[Junta]

I said *one* of the big motivators. I know a lot of road truck trailers never touch a train or boat. Some definitely do. Some are going very directly from point A to B with a large amount of cargo that gets economies of scale and it makes sense to have a single big weighted thing. Some are driving convoluted delivery routes because it's cheaper than concurrently operating a lot of vehicles, and the convoluted delivery route with many stops becomes a burden compared to a hypothetical fleet of lightweight, more direct route vehicles.

Note that to the extent autonomous vehicles can offload driving, even the drivers who do 'safe' will be faced with a larger unemployment pool in general, if nothing attracts those now unemployed drivers to other work or otherwise don't feel the need to work.

Re:Its too early IMO

[ranton]

I have a friend who is a truck driver who worries about driverless trucks one day putting him out of work. I laughed and told him that the first time some driverless 80,000-pound semi has a software glitch and piles full speed into a busload of kids, his future employment will be secured forever.

If that was true human drivers would already be out of a job, since about 5000 people are killed every year in trucking accidents. While it's certainly likely for a new crop of Luddites to fly off the rails at every autonomous accident, I don't share your pessimism about what the outcome would be of their crackpot protests.

Re:Its too early IMO

[ColdWetDog]

Dunno - E85 gas is up to 15% ethanol - 30 proof.

A couple of gallons and .... wipeout.

Re:Its too early IMO

[ColdSam]

So you're willing to let millions of people die because you are worried about what people think?

The right time to deploy autonomous vehicles is in fact BEFORE they are better than the average human driver, for two reasons. First, they will typically be replacing drivers who are worse than average. Second, by deploying them early they will mature faster and be safer sooner. The end result being more lives are saved.

Being afraid of a bad reputation because of a few accidents is cowardly and short-sighted. This might be the craven approach of a technology company trying to make a long term profit, but should not be public policy and those who know better should fight delays at every opportunity.

Re:Its too early IMO

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait till some accidents occur! I want hackers in scores showing how stupid it is to confuse these 3,000lbs pieces of pending scrap metal. Do you honestly think that the AI makers are going to stop with just cars?? Hell no! They are greedily going to continue with trucks, trains, planes, etc. Ever wonder why they started with cars? Because they prey on the weakest. The average ex-motorist, or the motorist being hit does not have the time or money to fight back. Believe me. These guys are not doing out of the kindness of their hearts!! $$$ rules the mind and dims the logic! Most of the richest people in the world are not the brightest candle on the birthday cake.

Re:Its too early IMO

[Anonymous Coward]

Truck drivers will still be needed for the last mile delivery. I don't think shippers will come up with a robot nimble and clever enough to deliver appliances and fitness equipment into homes (and unpack and install them when contracted to).

Sure, that'll continue to exist. Along with moving services. But those are a minority of truck drivers, and will hardly keep them all employed.

Re:Its too early IMO

[Luthair]

I agree, we need standardized testing to actually license the software and hardware. Drivers need to prove their aptitude before we allow them on the same burden should be true for autonomous vehicles.

Re:Its too early IMO

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a friend who is a truck driver who worries about driverless trucks one day putting him out of work. I laughed and told him that the first time some driverless 80,000-pound semi has a software glitch and piles full speed into a busload of kids, his future employment will be secured forever.

I recently saw a video of a fully autonomous port facility in Germany. Lots of big vehicles and cranes loading, unloading and moving giant shipping containers around with nary a human involved. While in that instance they're working in a closed environment, it seems obvious it's just a short matter of time before someone says "hey why do we have to let a human take over at the gate?".

The bigwigs who make these sorts of decisions are already trusting these things to handle millions of Dollars/Euros in cargo - do you think they value human lives higher than that? Your friend is right to be concerned.

(Posted anonymously since it be already spent mod points)

Re:Its too early IMO

[jcr]

Truck drivers will still be needed for the last mile delivery. I don't think shippers will come up with a robot nimble and clever enough to deliver appliances and fitness equipment into homes (and unpack and install them when contracted to).

That person doesn't need to be a driver, and he doesn't even need to be on the truck. As long as he arrives at the customer's home within a minute or so of when the truck does, it's all the same to the customer.

-jcr

Re:Its too early IMO

[kimvette]

Fair enough but then you're increasing fuel and vehicle costs and creating a new logistics problem.

Re:Its too early IMO

[Anonymous Coward]

I think E85 is a lot more than 15% ethanol. Wikipedia says it is 51% to 83%.

Re:Its too early IMO

[Mitreya]

If that was true human drivers would already be out of a job, since about 5000 people are killed every year in trucking accidents.

Let me rephrase the original poster a little bit:

"the first time some driverless 80,000-pound semi has been hacked remotely and piles full speed into a busload of kids..."

An accident is one thing, but human drivers cannot be hacked.
A student of mine just had to delay his application to a cybersecurity PhD program because the website has been defaced and disabled.

Re:Its too early IMO

[vtcodger]

"No, it's because freight containers come in two standard sizes, with road trucks being sized accordingly."

Some ARE like that. Some aren't Surely, you don't think that Walmart truck up ahead of you on a rural state highway is delivering 1300 34 inch flat screen TVs to the Walmart in North Hellandgone, Idaho.

Re:Its too early IMO

[elrous0]

While it's certainly likely for a new crop of Luddites to fly off the rails at every autonomous accident, I don't share your pessimism about what the outcome would be of their crackpot protests.

You just watch how fast legislation gets passed when CNN and every other media outlet does a week straight of coverage of the horrific tragedy caused by the first driverless semi to cause a major deadly crash. The first question every Congressman will be answering for weeks in every interview and press conference will be "What are you going to do to stop this from happening again?" Yes, people have accidents every day too. But Americans have come to accept that. But when a robo-truck kills, everyone and their brothers will freak the fuck out, the media will have a field day, and Congress will be falling over itself to pass anti-driverless legislation. Human drivers aren't going anywhere.

Re:Its too early IMO

[vtcodger]

"I agree, we need standardized testing to actually license the software and hardware."

Maybe. I don't think the Silicon Valley folks understand how liability works. If they start killing foiks and destroying property, they're going to find out that license agreements are a dubious protection from predatory lawyers. Auto company programmers understand liability, but I think they have even less understanding of the complexity of a fully autonomous vehicle system than the kids working along El Camino Real do.

It's conceivable that the industry might police itself after a few dozen multimillion dollar verdicts against it.

But maybe not. The folks in the valley are nothing if not arrogant.

And not that testing and certification is a bad idea. (Although the procedural issues of how to do it appear less than straightforward.)

Re:Its too early IMO

[ColdSam]

If you don't think we can afford better lawyers than you, you are badly misunderstanding silicon valley.

Re:Its too early IMO

[Raenex]

Yes, people have accidents every day too. But Americans have come to accept that.

And people will come to accept that from automated cars, too. Deadly accidents with automated drivers have already happened, with media coverage, but that hasn't stopped the march to automation.

Human drivers aren't going anywhere.

Paid drivers will be the minority within 5 years.

Re:Its too early IMO

[Anonymous Coward]

I think truck drives will be safe for many years. None of the Autonomous vehicles can operate in heavy snowfall or on snow covered roads.

Re:Its too early IMO

[elrous0]

Paid drivers will be the minority within 5 years.

lol. Not even in *50* years.

Re:Its too early IMO

[Raenex]

It'll be amusing if I can remember to revisit this comment in 5 years time, assuming Slashdot is still operating then.

Re:Its too early IMO

[jcr]

If an autonomous truck doesn't need a driver's seat, windshield, steering wheel, etc, then it can be more efficient.

Re:Its too early IMO

[ColdSam]

A small autonomous electric vehicle can be loaded with packages for a few blocks or a few miles, depending on the density. The customer is notified by smartphone that a package is available and when the customer is ready to pick up she responds to the message. The package will be in front of the house within a few minutes. Basically it's a mobile post office box (or Amazon locker).

This is just one of many solutions that would be far more efficient and useful for the customer than those of today.

Reason I want an automated driving vehicle

[Anonymous Coward]

Call me lazy, but one reason I want an autonomous vehicle is so I can get "valet-like" service at any restaurant. My town gets really busy on the weekends and finding a parking space near a restaurant is difficult. If I could stop in front, get out, say "go find a parking spot" then when I am done phone the car to come pick me up. That would be fabulous.

Re:Reason I want an automated driving vehicle

[EzInKy]

So why not just work weekends and take off during the week then? It's not as if life ends on Friday or something.

Re:Reason I want an automated driving vehicle

[GuB-42]

A perfectly valid reason.
What people call "lazy" is what drives humanity forward. After all, farmers are just lazy guys who keep their food sources close by instead of hunting and gathering like real men.

Re:Reason I want an automated driving vehicle

[K. S. Kyosuke]

You're not being lazy, you're being practical. Parking in general is a problem in many cities, and autonomous vehicles could ameliorate city planning processes.

Re:Reason I want an automated driving vehicle

[fluffernutter]

No, he's being lazy.

Re:Reason I want an automated driving vehicle

[Applehu Akbar]

Call me lazy, but one reason I want an autonomous vehicle is so I can get "valet-like" service at any restaurant. My town gets really busy on the weekends and finding a parking space near a restaurant is difficult. If I could stop in front, get out, say "go find a parking spot" then when I am done phone the car to come pick me up. That would be fabulous.

I see the biggest impact of autonomous vehicles, long term, as being the elimination of parking associated with destinations. The one-third of each US city devoted to parking lots will now be available for other uses. Apartment blocks will owe have parks. Strip malls will grow from today's L's and U's around parking acreage to fat O's that have a public center space for uses like outside seating. Shopping malls will become the cores of entire civic centers that will grow around them.

Autonomous cars will need highrise warehouse-like storage space when off duty that can be relegated to industrial areas, no longer associated with human destinations.

Re:Reason I want an automated driving vehicle

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Not polluting city centers with parked cars for use by a single person is not being lazy, it's being considerate.

Re:Reason I want an automated driving vehicle

[fluffernutter]

So he's going to send his car driving around the city looking for a parking spot. How many people will be happy to just simply make their automated cars go around the block, or make more frivolous trips, so they don't have to go out or pay for parking? Electric will make a difference to the environment, but not automation. If automated cars are still ICEs then it will get far worse.

Re:Reason I want an automated driving vehicle

[K. S. Kyosuke]

No, the car won't be looking for a parking spot; obviously, it will already know where to go. Regarding your "frivolous trips", I have no idea what that is supposed to be about.

Re:Reason I want an automated driving vehicle

[fluffernutter]

How will the car know where to go? Is every parking spot in the area going to be reporting whether it is empty or not? The restaurant might have a parking lot somewhere that is big enough for, and reserved for, all its patrons but most businesses don't, so cars will have to troll for parking spots. By frivolous trips, I mean why would people pay $20 for parking downtown when sending their car home and back takes roughly the right amount of time and only costs them $10 in gas?

Re:Reason I want an automated driving vehicle

[ColdSam]

Considering how many threads on self-driving cars you've been in, it's amazing that you can still pull off being so ridiculously clueless on the topic.

There are an almost endless number of solutions to the fake problems you're imagining, but you can't bother to think up even one? Pathetic.

Re:Reason I want an automated driving vehicle

[fluffernutter]

The only solution I can think of is to take personal ownership of vehicles away from people, which is obviously not going to happen. Besides, if people wanted that kind of service they would be using taxis already.

Re:Reason I want an automated driving vehicle

[religionofpeas]

Is every parking spot in the area going to be reporting whether it is empty or not?

That's certainly an option, yes. I've already seen parking garages where an overhead device checks for presence of the car in each spot. It would be easy to wire them together and allow 3rd parties to access the database. Also, the new NarrowBand IoT standard would allow simple standalone devices to be developed that could be installed in the floor of each parking spot and report every time a car enters or leaves.

Re:Reason I want an automated driving vehicle

[fluffernutter]

Still, this does nothing to save on burning fuel because the automated car is doing what a manual car would do anyway, going to a near available spot. Perhaps the car will find one half a block closer on average but no significant fuel savings. In fact, since parking lots outside of dense areas are always cheaper than the ones in the middle of dense areas it is more likely that the car will be driven to another part of the city to be parked.

Re:Reason I want an automated driving vehicle

[ColdSam]

Exactly, that is one of many options.

The existing model is incredibly inefficient and not compatible with modern technology. The idea of having a restaurant have its own parking lot, next to a bank that has ITs own parking lot,... all not allowing anyone but their own customers, even though they are empty most of the time (and completely full at another). God forbid you should park at one, do some banking and try to go eat.

It's not like every space needs to have a sensor. But if there is this huge demand for self-driving cars to park you can bet automated parking lots will spring up (or that stupid old bank parking lot will rent out its spaces at night, ...).

The idea that someone will have their car drive all the way home, spending $10 worth of "gas" is ludicrous. Most parking problems are in small areas. Driving even a few blocks away is almost certain to open up cheap parking the vast majority of the time. Regardless, if it's cheaper to drive all the way home, then that's exactly what the car should do. If space is more valuable than energy, then that's what we should conserve. Faux environmentalists like fluffer are just clueless.

Re:Reason I want an automated driving vehicle

[religionofpeas]

Once it has all the information, it would be easy to add up fuel cost and parking fees for all available spots, and pick the cheapest.

Re:Reason I want an automated driving vehicle

[fluffernutter]

Exactly, which would result in it driving to a much cheaper lot further away, every time. Of course, one can hope that parking spaces down town start to charge less because proximity to businesses isn't as valuable any more but it is doubtful that they will.

Re:Reason I want an automated driving vehicle

[Anonymous Coward]

Not polluting city centers with parked cars

Parked cars are not pollution.

Re:Reason I want an automated driving vehicle

[Anonymous Coward]

The existing model is incredibly inefficient and not compatible with modern technology. The idea of having one house, next to another house,... all not allowing anyone but their owners to live there, even though they are empty most of the time (and completely full at another). God forbid you should use someone else property with out their permission.

Re:Reason I want an automated driving vehicle

[jcr]

If that's the only solution you can think of, then you're way out of your depth.

-jcr

Re:Reason I want an automated driving vehicle

[jcr]

I can picture a business model for parking garages that are only for autonomous vehicles. They can be a lot farther away from a customer's destination than the customer is willing to walk, they can pack the cars in a lot tighter since it won't be necessary to open the doors while they're parked, the decks can be a lot closer together, since they'll only need to clear the height of the cars, etc.

-jcr

Re:Reason I want an automated driving vehicle

[fluffernutter]

I've heard many solutions to these problems from many people, but they all seem to make very wild assumptions about how the future will be. It's fun to come up with solutions. Hey, maybe there will be flying drones that can carry people and run on water. But if you're not realistic about how things are, then it's not much of a solution.

Re:Reason I want an automated driving vehicle

[ColdSam]

You stole my idea! And I say stole ironically because it is pretty frickin' obvious to anyone who isn't actively trying to kill self-driving vehicles.

Re:Reason I want an automated driving vehicle

[zippthorne]

It'll be going directly to the parking spot, rather than driving around town for 40 minutes hoping something closer will open up first.

Re: Reason I want an automated driving vehicle

[fluffernutter]

It will go directly to q spot on the outskirts of town

Re: Reason I want an automated driving vehicle

[fluffernutter]

So basically you want to live in a third world nation while they desperately try to become like us.

Re:Reason I want an automated driving vehicle

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Is every parking spot in the area going to be reporting whether it is empty or not?

Is it not going to be? In the city of the future, it would absolutely insane if it weren't. Such things are going to be even cheaper to automate than cars themselves.

Re:Reason I want an automated driving vehicle

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Yes, because taxis, using a large vehicle and a paid human driver (who, even when paid, only works a third of the day to boot, the lazy bastard!) are sooo cheap. :-p

Re:Reason I want an automated driving vehicle

[K. S. Kyosuke]

It would be even better to schedule it city-wide for optimum allocation and then signal the optima to the drivers by means of the pricing.

Re: Reason I want an automated driving vehicle

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Or just put this underground.

Re:Reason I want an automated driving vehicle

[K. S. Kyosuke]

OK, so replace it with "wasted space". It's the same.

Re: Reason I want an automated driving vehicle

[K. S. Kyosuke]

The funny thing is that this is already happening. The Chinese are busy buying millions of new cars to replace bicycles, while the developed Danes and Finns and others are switching back to bicycles so as not to become another nation of fat sacks of lard.

Re:Reason I want an automated driving vehicle

[fluffernutter]

You think Google and Uber and dumping billions into automated driving so they can run buck-a-ride glorified rickshaw services? No way, they're taking it to the bank. First they will be cheap enough to take out all manual taxis, then they will charge the same.

Re:Reason I want an automated driving vehicle

[ColdSam]

Absolutely, and modern technology allows us to do this efficiently. A vehicle miles tax, congestion traffic pricing, parking meter fees based on time of day and congestion, ... Every major city will move to this model eventually if they want to stay livable. Or they can be luddites like fluffer and ban uber, ban self driving, etc.

Re: Reason I want an automated driving vehicle

[ColdSam]

I'd say both worlds are moving towards the center. The Chinese will never reach the peak of our excess and we will gradually move towards a more sustainable way of living, partly out of environmental concern, but mostly out of economic necessity.

Re:Reason I want an automated driving vehicle

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Yes, because that's when history will come to a screeching halt. :-p

Do they need driving tests?

[Anonymous Coward]

A person cannot drive on the road without a driving test, so why should a car?

I'm not asking much, just a driving test to the same standards a person would be tested.

Re:Do they need driving tests?

[Junta]

The specific instance or the software platform?

If it's each and every car, then you've overwhelmed the DMV, mulitplying their load by maybe 10 fold.

Otherwise, the NHTSA approval is presumably pretty much that.

Although, the same standards don't necessarily work. Driving training and tests take a lot of human capability for granted. If you had something that could *just* pass the test, but otherwise have zero human capability, it could be still be a very dangerous vehicle operator.

Re:Do they need driving tests?

[Hognoxious]

If it's each and every car, then you've overwhelmed the DMV, mulitplying their load by maybe 10 fold.

I'd like to know where you got that number from. Exactly how many self-driving cars do you think each existing driver is going to buy?

Re:Do they need driving tests?

[Junta]

Think about commercial fleets/motor pools/rentals. Replaced every 2-3 years, in some scenarios many cars for relatively few drivers. Generally speaking, every driver gets *one* road test for their entire lifetime. Saying that they will operate 10 vehicles in their lifetime is probably *conservative*.

Re:Do they need driving tests?

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't even test each class of car to pass a driving test. Let alone each version of the software of each class of car.

NHTSA approval is no such thing, it's a set of guidelines to car markers.

The car does not pass a driving test, yet it's allowed to drive. Not by maker, not by model, not by version number. Not at all, in any way does it need to pass a basic test of driving competency.

Re:Do they need driving tests?

[kimvette]

> A person cannot drive on the road without a driving test, so why should a car?

They're doing the driving tests now. The next step (allowing the drivers who passed to drive without a veteran driver present) is what this is about. Currently autonomous vehicles are essentially on their learner's permits. Once they pass the driving test and get their license, why not let them drive without the veteran driver's presence?

You started on a good analogy and then veered off the road with it. ;)

Re:Do they need driving tests?

[Applehu Akbar]

"Exactly how many self-driving cars do you think each existing driver is going to buy?"

In the long run, zero. They will all be in fleets. Buying your own car will be like buying your own airplane, a specialty for the few.

Re:Do they need driving tests?

[ColdWetDog]

They don't even test each class of car to pass a driving test. Let alone each version of the software of each class of car.

NHTSA approval is no such thing, it's a set of guidelines to car markers.

The car does not pass a driving test, yet it's allowed to drive. Not by maker, not by model, not by version number. Not at all, in any way does it need to pass a basic test of driving competency.

You will end up with something like a program the FAA uses - the manufacturer certifies the craft to perform under certain conditions. You are required to maintain it to a certain spec and ensure that it is operated according to spec. This will be 'easy' to do with commercial fleets, a tad more interesting for private vehicles.

You may well see most autonomous vehicles rented / leased instead of just owned by individuals. Of course, that is the general direction society is heading these days anyways. You were born owning nothing, you won't actually own anything in your life time and your soul will be collected by Bank of America.

"Great idea!" said the CIA

[elrous0]

In today's news, a North Korean businessman who was visiting the U.S. on a tourist visa was killed in a freak accident involving a driverless car in Los Angeles.

Re:"Great idea!" said the CIA

[Anonymous Coward]

The San Diego freeway was the scene of a freak accident today as six freaks in a camper crashed into three freaks in a van.

It depends...

[Junta]

If it is a 4,000 lb. passenger vehicle with human occupants going at 70 MPH, I agree. For a vehicle that will be carrying humans *anyway*, I don't see any need to remove the controls in the near future, even if they are not going to be used much. Maybe one day if you have unaccompanied humans who cannot be trusted with that option, but I think it's too early for that.

If vehicle + payload is less than a couple hundred pounds, about the size of a scooter, and doesn't go more than 35 MPH or so, then I think it could be reasonable to not mandate human controls. Think smallish delivery vehicle. No space or crash readiness for human passengers, low weight, size, and speed significantly mitigates the risk of an 'oops'. Vehicle wouldn't need the rigid passenger compartment and could take on more energy of a crash impact. Lower inertia means there's less damage for it to do.

I personally think that long term, delivery will move from passenger cars (food delivery) and big box trucks carrying a bunch of packages (really trying to optimize for number of drivers) to many small vehicles carrying a handful of deliveries. Also, away from flying drones to road vehicles. Flying drones are neat and all, but it's far easier and less energy to roll around.

Re:It depends...

[fluffernutter]

So if a vehicle carrying packages runs over a pedestrian that's ok?

Re:It depends...

[Junta]

We allow people on bicycles that can do about the same damage without requiring they prove themselves.

You can also regulate the design of it such that it's unlikely to do much damage to a typical pedestrian, even if things go very wrong. Think about how cars today in europe are required to give more to allow for pedestrian safety. Then amplify that further since you don't need to tradeoff against human visibility.

Re:It depends...

[fluffernutter]

People with bicycles do the same damage as a loaded delivery truck??

Re:It depends...

[Junta]

If vehicle + payload is less than a couple hundred pounds, about the size of a scooter, and doesn't go more than 35 MPH or so,

I explicitly said that in the beginning. I don't picture the future of delivery being giant trucks, but more scooter sized things in the scenario of humanless vehicles. It takes a lot of energy and fuel to move the giant trucks, so I imagine the balance for home delivered packages to be smaller than a passenger car, and the giant trucks reserved for large packages and similar special cases, and human occupancy for the foreseeable future for such vehicles.

Re:It depends...

[NotInHere]

Full agree. But when it has the size of a scooter, I wouldn't call it "car" any more. That's a different category of vehicle.

Re:It depends...

[fluffernutter]

But then you'll get people stealing them.

Re:It depends...

[Junta]

You have people stealing packages today (they get left out a lot). A vehicle could conceivably be constantly streaming location, cameras streaming security feed out, and so on. Sounding an alarm and notifying police is possible, keeping about the same level of risk/reward as stealing packages today. A vehicle capable of driving itself should be able to notice if something isn't right, indicating breakin, being forced to stop, or being moved, and alert human operators to scrutinize that particularly units state of affairs.

All shipping is already a game of different risk at different cost. Your random amazon purchase is at relatively high risk of loss or theft today. Money pickup from a store safe is an armored truck.

Re:It depends...

[Mr D from 63]

We allow people on bicycles that can do about the same damage without requiring they prove themselves.

False logic. We actually have a very long history of bike riding and know very well the safety and risks. There are even rules and laws established to manage these risks. And on top of that there is human self preservation instinct that helps. Not so for autonomous vehicles.

Re:It depends...

[vtcodger]

"So if a vehicle carrying packages runs over a pedestrian that's ok?"

Hey, this is America. If we allow people to take precedence over commerce, we will lose the freedoms our forefathers fought for. Right?

Re:It depends...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe one day if you have unaccompanied humans who cannot be trusted with that option, but I think it's too early for that.

I think you are wrong and that "taxi / ride-sharing" will be the first application, and driverless trucks will be the second. "Luxury cruise control for the elites" will happen later, because it makes less sense. It's just easier for people to imagine, like "horseless carriage".

Re:It depends...

[vtcodger]

At least you're giving some thought to the subject. I think you are wrong about autonomous taxis, but not because they don't make sense. The problem is that to navigate the surface streets, parking lots, and driveways where taxis travel, you're going to need to sense a very wide variety of things including non-standard road signage, parades, snow, traffic signals directly between the vehicle and the sun, construction zones ... That's going to entail following 50,000 rules or, for all you and I know, maybe 50 million, rules. The hardware may be doable today. Getting a VERY large number of rules right is going to take many years I think. I'm thinking a couple of decades if we want to minimize the collateral damage.

Long distance trucks on express ways OTOH operate in a far less demanding domain. If all else fails, they can simply creep over to the breakdown lane, park and send a text message (via satphone, not all areas of US interstates have cell phone coverage) to the dispatcher. "TRUCK 5498B HERE. CAN'T SEE ROAD. PARKED AT 43.83750, -72.59216. SEND HELP. DIAGNOSTICS FOLLOW ... ". Lot's of problems there also. Toll booths, weather, etc. But MANY fewer than a taxi faces.

Re:It depends...

[ColdSam]

You think humans intuitively know those 50,000 rules? The difference is that you can program that rule one time on a computer and it will be able to deploy that to millions of vehicles, whereas you have to teach that rule to a human millions of times.

Either this backfires big time ...

[Qbertino]

... or California is going to be the first place to make a huge technological leap.

I'm sort of hoping for the second option.

Re:Either this backfires big time ...

[amiga3D]

No technology is perfect and no doubt people will still die in crashes but I think that overall the death total should drop over time as self drivers become the norm. When you consider around one third of highway deaths are alcohol related and then factor in things like cell phone usage and such you can see where autonomous vehicles should have an advantage. The problem is you can have drunks kill 10,000 people and the outcry from a few deaths due to sensor glitches in autonomous cars will drown that all out. They should be extremely sensitive to casualties as they start out. Take very few chances.

The irony of safety concerns.

[geekmux]

"I don't trust these newfangled vehicles! Those computers will crash and cause accidents!"

...says the human ranting on social media, texting behind the wheel while driving on the freeway...

Re:The irony of safety concerns.

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy gets it. The faster this tech is here, the faster I won't have at least one accident per evening on my 30mi bay area commute home.

Re:The irony of safety concerns.

[Anonymous Coward]

All of you in the bay area need to put down your cellphones and learn how to drive. I have driven four times farther than an average American does in their lifetimes without a single accident. If I were the average American, I would have had 16 accidents by now.

Rack this up to another case of SV trying to solve a social problem (irresponsibility) with technology.

Re:The irony of safety concerns.

[jcr]

Bingo. We consider it normal to have multiple fatal accidents every day in a major city. Robotic cars will save lives.

-jcr

Re:The irony of safety concerns.

[Anonymous Coward]

All of you in the bay area need to put down your cellphones and learn how to drive. I have driven four times farther than an average American does in their lifetimes without a single accident. If I were the average American, I would have had 16 accidents by now.

Given the amount of accidents and fatalities that occur every year, you probably know that your perfect record is likely more one of sheer luck than skill. Also, the bay area has ten times the traffic volume than rural Nebraska, which tends to make any claims of human perfection dubious at best.

Standards are needed

[XB-70]

Whether humans or machines drive cars is irrelevant. What DOES matter is HOW they drive.

Humans are required to pass a standards test. Machines (so far) are not.

Why is there not a standard being established by the self-driving industry with stakeholders from government and the public?

The standard needs to be there to set minimum guidelines for:

- Software vulnerability

- Computer redundancy (three computers checking each other - like the airplane industry)

- Obstacle detection

- Rule downloads/updates by government district

- Manual override/safe stop capability

- User interface (voice, smartphone etc.)

- Weather calibration/detection: ice, snow, rain, high winds/tornadoes etc.

- National Emergency/Evacuation capability

- Idling/Circling (the block) rules - (in a busy downtown, users could clog streets with cars endlessly circling the block)

- Human needs consideration: Pee breaks, Senior/Child safety etc.

and so forth

Point being that there are no standards for any of this. Unless an autonomous vehicle is able to pass tests, then it should NOT be on the road with those who have.

Re:Standards are needed

[Baron_Yam]

Good list, but I'd add one. There needs to be a remote manual override... if for some reason a police officer wants a car to stop, it needs to stop. If emergency vehicles need a clear path, the car needs to get out of the way.

Yes, this will mean there will be a minimum level of exploit possible by malicious individuals, but it's necessary to make autonomous vehicles behave appropriately on public roads.

Re:Standards are needed

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't exist now, and should never exist.

If the person in the car doesn't want to be overridden, there needs to be a setting that prevents it from happening.

I think the best solution is to prohibit any type of remote override.

for whom?

[s.petry]

Taxi and Ride sharing companies may like this, but the majority of people drive a car for freedom. No driver controls means that spontaneous trips, detours, and stops are not possible.

If you work on the assumption that people only drive to get to work and home you are incorrect, but that seems to be the position being pushed.

Re: for whom?

[whopis]

Sure because once you have told the automated car where to go there is no possible way of stopping it along the way or changing its destination.

Also I would venture to guess that the majority of driving is commuting to work for a lot of people. And many of them would welcome this.

Re:for whom?

[tinkerton]

What freedom? I think most people drive a car to get them to a certain destination when they want to. An automated drive can do that.
Many people also want to be in control, at least most of the time. Automated drive may or may not allow for that. If the driver can control the automated drive it will be a welcome thing in the traffic jam or on a boring part of a long trip. It can even give more freedom: it can allow the driver to take the car while drunk, when suffering from occasional epileptic seizures (when you're not even allowed to drive in current conditions), when he wants to check email or when she's just extremely tired. So having the option is nice.

Then there's the intermediate case: you can drive manually most of the time but at some times and in some locations you have to switch to automated drive. These can feel like an acceptable tradeoff if it makes things go much more fluently.

So what makes automated drive a source of frustration? When you feel you're being treated as a child by authorities deciding everything will work much better if they take control as much as possible because they are grownups who know what they're doing and you can't be trusted. And in fact what you want is irrelevant because they have these numbers and that is all that matters. So they decide that everything is better if they lead your life instead of you. Will that happen? Guess so. But automated drive will start as a useful option.

Re:for whom?

[ColdSam]

Many people also want to be in control, at least most of the time.

The vast majority of time spent driving is tedious and annoying. The number of people who want to actively drive most of the time is actually small and will continue to get smaller. Lots of people claim they love driving all the time, yet these people don't seem to be around to drive me to the airport, even if I volunteer a few bucks to pay for gas.

The frustration you speak of actually comes from being in the position of being partially responsible for the vehicle, one with controls. Once you give up control, it doesn't matter that much that you are only going 65 in a 65 zone or that you're not passing other cars as much as efficiently as you would if you are driving. It's like having a chauffeur who is a stickler for the law (or a Japanese taxi driver). You learn to detach.

There certainly will be a transition period where many self driving cars have controls, but over time fewer and fewer people will have licenses and people will learn to trust the vehicles more than they do other humans. Driving yourself will be expensive and dangerous, a luxury only the rich will be able to afford.

Re:for whom?

[tinkerton]

I belong to that minority who loves to drive and has a reasonable set of skills and even I wouldn't mind an autopilot in a traffic jam. I wouldn't think yet about that far future where cars won't have controls. I can imagine areas though that enforce autopilots.
Mostly though I think autopilot is a limited concept. The larger concept is that control happens at a higher level, even if it's just monitoring. We're rapidly moving towards a situation where every move is being monitored and where the second you exceed the speed limit, the system intervenes and it gets logged and sanctioned by the authorities and by your insurer.

Re:for whom?

[Maureen Base]

I can have the car go get me a beer? I'm buying.

Re:for whom?

[ColdSam]

Come on. A lot of people love to drive when the circumstances are fine, but the reality is that most of the time they're not. How many times have you heard: "Great. Traffic is totally backed up. I get to drive even longer than I planned for!" Even then most people prefer to drive because they don't want someone else driving; knowing for certain that they are much better than average. Like you and me. We are excellent drivers and should get to fudge the rules, unlike other people.

Reason is clear

[russotto]

Congratulations to Google's lobbyists in Sacremento, I guess.

Why Legal Bribery Is Still the Best Investment

[Anonymous Coward]

California Law and Federal Law, the real magic to changing the world is knowing the real power lies in the always on-sale bargain price bribery of a politician.

So give me another gratuitous tax cut and raise taxes on everyone making less than $150K by selling it to the media as government overreach & patriotism. Voters love eating that shyte up.

Imagine a world...

[Anonymous Coward]

...where Google and Uber are financially responsible for literally every single car crash that ever happens. That's a trillion a year for America alone. Whatever laughably unrealistic percentage you want to figure carbots will reduce accidents by, that's still insta-bankruptcy.

Re:Imagine a world...

[fluffernutter]

There are fools out there that think drivers or insurance agencies will be happy to pay for it all. It's a ridiculous idea but it's also the only way I can see it being financially viable unless self driving cars are absolutely perfect and infallible. It's going to be at least fifty years at current rate until that happens.

Re:Imagine a world...

[religionofpeas]

Other fools think insurance companies will be happy to pay for human drivers that aren't absolutely perfect and infallible. It's a ridiculous idea.

Re:Imagine a world...

[fluffernutter]

Insurance companies don't, policy holders do. Companies don't pay for anything, customers of companies do. Besides, it is one thing to pay for human drivers to pay for the faults of human drivers and quite another for passengers to pay for the faults of their automated driver which they have no control over. It's like getting insurance to ride a train.

Re:Imagine a world...

[ColdSam]

Does this drivel make sense in your own head? What's that like?

Re:Imagine a world...

[fluffernutter]

Heh, good answer. Very compelling retort.

Re:Imagine a world...

[religionofpeas]

it is one thing to pay for human drivers to pay for the faults of human drivers and quite another for passengers to pay for the faults of their automated driver which they have no control over. It's like getting insurance to ride a train.

The insurance for riding a train is included in the fare, of course. For a self driving car, there's no reason why the owner couldn't be required to get an insurance policy. Alternatively, the manufacturer of the car could get a policy for you, and charge you a monthly (or per mile) cost for riding.

Re:Imagine a world...

[fluffernutter]

Why would the owner get an insurance policy? The owner doesn't have any more to do with the operation of the vehicle than the 10 year old child that might be riding it, should they have an insurance policy? There might only be a box in the car, should the box have an insurance policy? As an owner I can see having an insurance policy to protect you against pure property damage like house insurance. If someone damages your vehicle whether it be through vandalism or an uninsured driver or a tree falling then you would want your property fixed, but that is vastly less expensive insurance. Most of vehicle insurance covers you for liability from the accident you might make. If the car is self driving, you can't have an accident so can never be held liable for one.

Re:Imagine a world...

[ColdSam]

The whole premise of the OP is ridiculous. If Google and Uber are financially responsible for all crashes then they also have a monopoly on every industry associated with automobiles (including manufacturing, shipping, insurance, taxis, bussing, etc.) That multi trillion dollar empire can easily afford the trillion in supposed accident liability.

"Insurance" will either be included with the car, offered by the car manufacturer, or offered by a third party. Perhaps some combination of these. It's not something the average person will have to think about, just leave it to the accountants and actuaries.

Re:Imagine a world...

[religionofpeas]

The owner is the primary person enjoying the benefits of the car, so it makes sense they pay the policy for possible accidents, either directly by taking out a policy themselves or indirectly in the cost of the car, or a monthly fee. This also allows them to choose their own coverage options.

If you don't accept, then don't buy a self driving car, and pay a bit more.

Re:Imagine a world...

[fluffernutter]

I'm not really sure why you think people will be happy to pay for accidents that aren't their fault. Factory defects affecting safety have always been the responsibility of the dealer. You can't put a car on the road if you know there is a chance that the wheels will fall off. That's why there are recalls. If my automated car clips another car then it has a factory defect, end of story. What you are talking about is a dangerous road to go down, because if a manufacturer isn't held liable for automation, then how can they be held liable for any other kind of defect? Soon we have cars that are 99% mechanically safe and there is no recourse when they fail.

Re:Imagine a world...

[religionofpeas]

I'm not really sure why you think people will be happy to pay for accidents that aren't their fault.

It's the most practical thing to do. Because they get the benefit of riding a car without having to drive themselves. And they'll be paying less insurance premiums too, so I expect them to be happier than when they have to drive themselves, get involved in more accidents, and pay higher premiums.

if a manufacturer isn't held liable for automation, then how can they be held liable for any other kind of defect?

Same as it is now. When a car has manufacturing defects, or there is a case of gross negligence by the manufacturer, the insurance company will sue them.

Re:Imagine a world...

[fluffernutter]

?? So you are basically proving my point.. The manufacturers will need to cover the cost if they get sued, since having bugs in the code that is driving people around is a case of gross negligence.

Re:Imagine a world...

[ColdSam]

I've been really curious to see if your approach, taking him seriously and being nice, could make any progress getting through to this nut. I can see that it hasn't worked, but I applaud you for trying.

Premature given their disengagement rates

[wired_parrot]

It seems premature. According to Google's last disengagement report, humans had to take control of the wheel at a rate of 0.2 per 1,000 miles, or 1 per 5,000 miles. While this is significant improvement from their previous report, which showed human intervention once every 1,000 miles, it would not give me confidence that the cars are ready to be in public streets without a driver present. They should be aiming for a rate of human intervention of no more than once per the lifetime of the vehicle (1 per 200,000 miles) before allowing the cars without a human driver.

Re:Premature given their disengagement rates

[elrous0]

I would also want to make sure those tests reflect a wide variety of real-world driving conditions. An AI driving 1,000 miles on the relatively standardized interstate is WAY different than it driving 1,000 miles on poorly-marked country backroads in Bumfuck, Montana.

Re:Premature given their disengagement rates

[Anonymous Coward]

I would also want to make sure those tests reflect a wide variety of real-world driving conditions. An AI driving 1,000 miles on the relatively standardized interstate is WAY different than it driving 1,000 miles on poorly-marked country backroads in Bumfuck, Montana.

I'm pretty sure that it has occurred to Google and other car developers that they can't just test on interstates.

Re:Premature given their disengagement rates

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems premature.

If you need to know whether your investment will be made worthless by luddites, it's coming a bit late.

According to Google's last disengagement report,

This is a very interesting report and is worth more to me than TFA. Thank you!

Observations:

Page 4 Figure C, they're using an old MBA mind trick! y axis is not 0-based.

Another important aspect of the report is that they're self-categorizing the disengagements as "routine" vs. "reportable." I think this is not so bad because I expect their ability to make any progress with the state depends on their credibility and reputation, and it's harder to make these engineers lie when they have no financial reason to work. However I would expect the difference between 0.16 and 0.13 to fall within the noise of discretion. The progress on safety disengagements might be minimal, or it might be significant but hard to measure until we increase our risk threshold.

How would you measure the number of "safety disengagements" with a human driver? I remember driving with my mom as a teenager, and I felt she was affecting panic to be disrespectful. Choosing to invoke disengagement has little to do with the situation and more to do with (1) your trust in the primary driver, (2) the amount of respect you feel obligated to give the primary driver. Both are lower for a teenager, and much lower for a robot. It's hard to extract a situational signal over the noise of (1) and (2), which for example will increase with humans' experience with the robots even if the robots don't get any better. so, again, I don't criticize them for categorizing the incidents using a simulator. I think it's not only kinda-fair, but necessary to get any signal whatsoever. But even then the signal will be noisy, and semi-meaningless in an absolute sense.

Re:Premature given their disengagement rates

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad you aren't in control with your insane requirements.

Re:Premature given their disengagement rates

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would they not make it easy on their products. After all, they are trying to sell the idea to the public and lawmakers. Why not rack up millions of miles circling around the same well thought out path that is hard to screw up on?

self-parking cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Autonomous cars will need highrise warehouse-like storage space when off duty that can be relegated to industrial areas, no longer associated with human destinations.

And how much will traffic snarl from shuttling to/from such areas?

Re:self-parking cars

[Applehu Akbar]

Since cars would only be parked as demand slacks off from commuting peaks, an nowhere near where people are, none.

Correct

[s.petry]

I was very specific about the issue being a spontaneous stop or trip. Something that a majority of people do when driving outside of going to work. "Hey what's that store?" is pretty common, or "where does this road go?". Do that in a car you can't control and it's "re-routing" and at least a several minute detour to get back to where you could have just pulled in if you had control.

Let me also say that people worried about being "green" ignore the fact that many of these services will massively increase the amount of energy a car needs to run. I have yet to see a self-driving car figure out how to park in a busy parking lot, so I guess in your world people won't be able to actually go to a store and park and all of these self driving cars would either hog the road idling or drive in circles. Citation just because the dishonest are usually lazy. Do you hate the environment that much?

Your failure to recognize normal human behavior and real problems just shows that you are shilling, intentionally or not, for cars people have no ability to control. Shame on you!

Re:Correct

[justthinkit]

these services will massively increase the amount of energy a car needs to run

What Really Saves Gas?

Test #3 Use Cruise Control
Result: Surprisingly effective way to save gas
Cold Hard Facts: Up to 14-percent savings, average savings of 7 percent
Recommendation: If you've got it, use it.

Re:Correct

[ColdSam]

The guy spreading FUD about self-driving cars accuses others of shilling. Really?

That you are ignorant on the topic and have no imagination does not mean that what you describe are real problems, let alone unsolvable ones. The number of times people just randomly veer off to a passing store is negligible, and I'm guess that if you're the kind of person whose mind is wandering like that and makes snap decisions you are probably a lot more likely to get in accidents. I don't know what car you drive, but telling your car to go to that Starbucks on the left will be quick AND safe.

As for parking, first you should appreciate that when we have full self driving there will be a lot fewer cars manufactured and fewer on the roads. In most cases cars will just drop off the passenger and then wait for their next fare. In the minority of cases, where the car is owned by the passenger, the car can wait, can double park, can drive three blocks away, whatever. There will be fewer parking lots wasting space and there will be far fewer people just driving in circles looking for the closest space, wasting energy and clogging the roads. A self driving car parking lot (for the few cases) will also be much more efficiently packed and easier to navigate (like current valet parking lots). Your fears are simply ridiculous in their ignorance.

Re:Correct

[dryeo]

As the article says,

One thing that's important to note: if you are in a mountainous area you should turn off cruise. It will try to keep you up to the speed you've set and will use a lot of extra gas downshifting to lower gears to accomplish this.

Which is why I hardly use cruise control and wonder about a self driving car.

Re:Correct

[ColdSam]

You wonder about a self driving car because you think the tens of thousands of engineers working on the technology would never think to consider how to efficiently drive on a hilly road?

Re:Correct

[zippthorne]

Parent is probably wondering about it because results in that area should be applicable to non-self-driving cars, so why aren't we seeing vehicles coming out now that already handle hills decently? (or.. are we seeing just that in newer cars, just without fanfare?)

Re:Correct

[dryeo]

Depends on their goal. Efficiency or legality. I hate it when my vehicle tries to maintain the legal speed limit on the roads around here. Then there are the advisory speed limits (yellow signs before a corner), which are usually too low, at least in good conditions.

Re:Correct

[ColdSam]

I'm sure recent high end cars do handle this much better than the constant up and down shifting that old crappy automatics were known for. My 2014 Audi seems fine in that regard, although I'm sure it is not faultless.

Many self driving cars won't have this problem at all, e.g. electric cars that have a single gear. High end automatics also shift quietly and efficiently so it's not a big deal.

However, the main point is that a car that is smart enough to navigate a complicated city environment can certainly find the optimal speed, gear, mode, etc. for driving on a hill. It really looks desperate when people have to find these niche cases to prove the superiority of human over computer drivers.

Re:Correct

[ColdSam]

Being forced to follow nominal traffic laws is a tradeoff most people would be willing to make for the safety and convenience of self driving cars. People who want better can certainly lobby for relaxed traffic laws (or driving algorithms) for self-driving cars. I'd have no issue with software that let the self-driving car speed up to 10% over the nominal limit while coasting down a hill (but then I'd also let them go 100 mph if I get to make all the rules). Of course, there are other ways to go: e.g. regenerative braking.

Re:Correct

[Anonymous Coward]

People will still want to own their own self driving cars. We won't want to wait for a car or beholden to some companies schedule. I want to walk out the door any time of day and jump in my car and be ready to go. Unless the cars all triple in price, I think we will definitely still each have our own car.

We may share a car for a family which could reduce parking spaces needed, but this won't solve the cars on the road, especially if the car is doing all these extra trips running around for each person.

That could make traffic worse.

Re:Correct

[jcr]

If I owned a robotic car, I don't expect parking to be an issue at all. Parking is an issue because we don't want to walk a couple of miles from a parking spot to our destination. If the car can go find a place to wait on its own, even going all the way home if necessary, the whole problem goes away.

-jcr

Re:Correct

[Cinnamon Beige]

I don't know about where dryeo is, but I've encountered a lot of places where the advisory speed limits were, as far as I can tell, set by somebody who hopefully isn't involved in engineering roads nor has attempted to take the particular road at the advised speed--or if they have, they don't pay much attention to how well the vehicle handles the curve(s). In my experience the 'sweet spot'--where a car is going to hold the road well, and not fight you about taking the curve--is usually significantly different. There's no particular pattern to this: the amount and direction vary, sometimes significantly.

I also have lived right off a road that is actually a significant challenge to drive at the posted speed limit, and in fact is so well-designed for its original speed limit that people naturally drive it at that speed. Many of the curves are actually harder to do at the current, lower speed.

This actually might be something to use self-driving cars to check, though: If well-tested driving algorithms that are emphasizing safety decide to flip off the 30mph advisory sign on that curve and go a different speed when you do its test runs on this particular road...

Re:Correct

[ColdSam]

The advisory speeds are set intentionally low. Certainly all the cars I've owned can take the turns much faster in good weather and even rental cars that I've driven were fine at +10 if you know how to drive well. The point is self-driving cars can do so much better than the thousands of humans in that situation. They will know that different kind of cars can handle very differently and will use the advisory signs as just a guideline, basing speed on the characteristics of the road and the data from thousands of cars driven before it.

Re:Correct

[Cinnamon Beige]

The advisory speeds are set intentionally low. Certainly all the cars I've owned can take the turns much faster in good weather and even rental cars that I've driven were fine at +10 if you know how to drive well. The point is self-driving cars can do so much better than the thousands of humans in that situation. They will know that different kind of cars can handle very differently and will use the advisory signs as just a guideline, basing speed on the characteristics of the road and the data from thousands of cars driven before it.

Which means that a well-tested, robust set of driving algorithms should also be quite capable of determining if the advisory speed is too low, or did you miss the point that some roads are actually harder to drive at the posted (advisory or not) speed?

Of course, this depends on getting to where we've got well-tested, robust self-driving vehicles which isn't necessarily something we can say about any of them yet (if nothing else, the well-tested part)--and I'd be iffy on the whole of the entire idea of removing the ability for a human to take control as a failsafe feature. Sudden catastrophic failures of vehicles' electronics is a thankfully incredibly rare problem, but...it's not unknown. Minimum should be the ability for a human to cause the vehicle to come to a complete stop in an emergency; preferably, this should be a safe complete stop, at a safe spot...and not, for example, partially under a bus.

Re:Correct

[ColdSam]

Which means that a well-tested, robust set of driving algorithms should also be quite capable of determining if the advisory speed is too low, or did you miss the point that some roads are actually harder to drive at the posted (advisory or not) speed?

I didn't miss it, I just don't believe it. There is no physics model I can conceive of that makes it harder to drive a turn safely at a lower speed than a faster speed, other than a crazy highly banked turn, which probably doesn't exist on a normal highway. Acceleration is not the same as speed, btw. Care to point out an example of this phenomenon?

If your only point is that self-driving cars can monitor the road and give feedback to other self-driving vehicles and alert the powers that be to incorrect signage, then sure. Nobody is disputing that.

Minimum should be the ability for a human to cause the vehicle to come to a complete stop in an emergency; preferably, this should be a safe complete stop, at a safe spot...and not, for example, partially under a bus.

If your point is that self-driving cars are not ready for every road right now, well, sure. Again, nobody is disputing that. However, mandating that a panic button be installed when these cars are in wide deployment is silly and unnecessary. We don't mandate that for taxis or buses, why would we insist on such a thing in a much safer vehicle? Of course, you will always have the option to instruct the car to pull over to a safe area, just as you can a taxi driver. Big difference between that and a panic button.

Would you get in a car you can't control?

[memzilla]

I wouldn't.

Re:Would you get in a car you can't control?

[ColdSam]

Yet you take taxis and buses, let your kids or other loved ones be driven by others, etc.

Re:Would you get in a car you can't control?

[memzilla]

If a bus or tax driver 'malfunctions', a passenger can take the controls. How do you do that on an 'autonomous' motor vehicle without human controls?

Re:Would you get in a car you can't control?

[ColdSam]

What kind of bad action movie are you living in? Do you seriously think you (or your mom or your child) is going to vault into the front seat (assuming there isn't a glass partition) to steer and brake that taxi to safety. Absurd.

Re:Would you get in a car you can't control?

[memzilla]

You'd have a lot better chance than you would in a vehicle with no human controls.

Re:Would you get in a car you can't control?

[ColdSam]

Absolutely not. I'd take a self-driving car that is ten times safer than a human over that 1 in 10 chance I'd be able to save myself from an idiot taxi driver. If you had any sense, you would too.

Re:Would you get in a car you can't control?

[memzilla]

So, you would rather have a 0% chance to save yourself in a malfunctioning 'autonomous' car than a 10% chance to save yourself in a human-controlled car with a 'malfunctioning' driver?

Re:Would you get in a car you can't control?

[ColdSam]

Do you drive across country rather than fly commercially? You have no chance of landing that plane, but you need to be in control so you'd subject yourself and your family to a much riskier journey just so you can feel like you are in control?

Re:Would you get in a car you can't control?

[memzilla]

If it were an 'autonomous' plane without human controls, I would have no chance of landing it. A slim chance of landing a human-controllable plane is better than none. It's not about being 'in control'. It's about being able to control, if necessary. Other than cutting cost, what advantage is there to removing human controls from vehicles?

Re:Would you get in a car you can't control?

[ColdSam]

I'll try again. You have the choice of either a bomb with a timer going off in 60 seconds or a pineapple. Which do you think is safer? You have a non-zero chance of defusing that bomb, so I'm guessing that's the one you would take.

Why doesn't every passenger in a plane or car have their own set of controls? Just in case? Seems that's what you're advocating.

Uh-huh

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure that under perfectly controlled circumstances on perfectly straight or gridded streets, they might not. Unfortunately, that doesn't describe the vast majority of the planet. If we start destroying cities to accommodate half-baked technology, I will be mightily pissed. So will many others. California really needs to get its head out of the echo chamber of its a$$ once in awhile, and realize they are not deities among men and women. The majority of us have bigger things to think about and better things to spend money on than Silicon Valley ego strokes.

Our new masters

[Anonymous Coward]

Self-driving cars do not have the adaptability of humans, and won't for a very very long time, regardless of gushing fanboys. Instead, humans will have to adapt to self-driving cars. That's all this is saying. If you're driving near a self-driving car, it de facto has the right of way, because there's really no telling what it will do if an untrained situation arises.

Let me give you an example. In my town, we have clear plastic bus shelters. Some of them are situated in such a way that under certain conditions they reflect in such a way that it looks like a car is coming rapidly from the right. One's first instinct is to brake, until you realize it's just a reflection. In the case of a self-driving car, there will be an inconsistency between modalities -- for example radar or ultrasound will show no problem, but video will. Which one to believe? Err on the side of safety? Risk a rear-ender? Is that particular situation likely to have been trained for?

As for human intervention, the intervention is probably much less important than understanding what went wrong. Analysis of car sensors is likely to reveal that the car did the right thing. Baby on board, er, I mean human, may see or understand better what led to failure.

Modifyiing the old age to meet the new age.

[Neuronwelder]

Since they are so eager to add AI to something, let them do it by bringing back trolley cars. They were fantastic in Chicago until less than 100 year ago. My mom said they were great! With AI on board there can be 2 guards keeping watch on the passengers, so nothing evil happens. They travel on tracks so even if some idiot takes over the trolley, remotely, steering is off the list and the guards can have a special code and/or/with a physical key that can bring the trolley to a halt. Maybe a mechanical brake that overrides any command you can give it?

California says...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who gives a fuck?

California thinks deficit spending is great.
California thinks that engineering buildings to be JUST sub-par to earthquake survival in their region is cool.
California fucks with their forestry policy which now encourages wildfires, then bitches about wildfires and global warming.
California wants you to think it's okay to do drugs.
California wants you to think it's okay to stifle free speech and other rights, "just cuz".
California wants to eliminate a wage gap that doesn't exist.
California thinks that marrying children, beheading your enemies, clitorectomies, rape of young boys, tossing gays off roofs, etc equates to "a beautiful religion".
California thinks that communism just needs to be given "another try" to "get it right".
California ignores science when it suits them, like when they recognize umpty-bajillion and three made-up "genders".
Basically California is a concatenation of some of the shallowest, stupidest, most clueless, least pleasant fuckheads in the first world.

Why should anyone give a damn about what that stinking morass of all that's wrong with humanity "thinks"?

Slashcensorship hard at work

[s.petry]

Subject says it all. Rational criticism not allowed when SJWs and social engineers are around with mod points.

No Reason to Trust the Programming

[eepok]

I don't trust autonomous vehicles because I don't have any reason to. I don't trust Google's or Apple's or Tesla's autonomous vehicles because we in the public (even us nerds) haven't seen enough data to trust them. While someone cited a stat earlier in the conversation like "a human has had to take control once in 5,000 miles", that's not enough. Where were those 5,000 miles? At what speed? What was the other traffic like? Were these 5,000 miles of continually changing conditions or 5,000 of crawling rush hour traffic in San Francisco over a year of testing?

We have learned over the years that when someone proposes a major risk-based endeavor, there always needs some sort of third-party verifier of relative safety. (The CPSC, NTSB, NITSA, PCI, etc.) And those who complain about "hindering innovation" put their own profitability ahead of the safety of their customers. Do we have ANY third-party organization like this yet to test the safety/reaction capability of autonomous vehicles in a controlled environment? Do they have a standardized testing facility?

I don't think we do.

I think everyone who has been working on this tech have selected/developed their own facilities, tests, and standards. And to a certain extent, that's to be expected. But look at all the RECENT times when tech innovation has out-paced regulation: Uber ("disruptive", but massive amounts of illegal practices), Dot Com Boom (pump and dump!), IoT (zombie refrigerators!), Always-On Entertainment Tech (CIA...).

There is no need to rush autonomous vehicles except to build venture capital (investment gambling) and bring in profit. Some people say it's directly related to sustainability, but we can't even settle on a single EV plug standard or EVSE payment system (because the same people say these vehicle will be pure-electric).

And I say this as someone who actually works in sustainability and transportation!

1972 Anything

[Anonymous Coward]

A 1972 anything is better than this auto car nonsense.
Cars shouldn't even have AutoCruise nor Anti-Skid these are AIRCRAFT flight controls, your not FLYING!
A computer should only control the FUEL, and the RADIO PERIOD.. everything else needs to be PRIMARY CONTROLS

Ask me more about intermittent Anti-Skid Sensor, and Stuck Throttle, but first pass the fire extinguisher. These pilotless cars make me never want to ride my bike again. ALREADY SINCE THESE AUTO CARS HAVE BEEN IN THE NEWS I HEAR ABOUT DEAD BICYCLISTS!!!

How about this, if one of these cars hits someone and kills em, is the INVENTOR willing to be put to death too?

Thanks for the insightful testing guidelines

[Paul Fernhout]

Makes a lot of sense to have software pass a test, same as for people.