Slashdot Mirror


House Passes Bill To Speed Deployment of Self-driving Cars (go.com)

The House voted Wednesday to speed the introduction of self-driving cars by giving the federal government authority to exempt automakers from safety standards not applicable to the technology, and to permit deployment of up to 100,000 of the vehicles annually over the next several years. From a report: The bill was passed by a voice vote. State and local officials have said it usurps their authority by giving to the federal government sole authority to regulate the vehicles' design and performance. States would still decide whether to permit self-driving cars on their roads. Automakers have complained that a patchwork of laws states have passed in recent years would hamper deployment of the vehicles, which they see as the future of the industry. Self-driving cars are forecast to dramatically lower traffic fatalities once they are on roads in significant numbers, among other benefits. Early estimates indicate there were more than 40,000 traffic fatalities last year. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says 94 percent of crashes involve human error.

113 of 176 comments (clear)

  1. exempt automakers from safety standards??? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    To what level????

    I want see some CEO hulled in front of small town hard ass judge after a bad crash where they get into the local jail after they try to pull the NDA / EULA / 3rd party BS to get out of talking about the code. In a very bad car accident it can be an criminal trial.

    1. Re:exempt automakers from safety standards??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      All these lawmakers who voted for this bill without understanding the technology involved or the current state of the industry should be required to complete one entire circuit of the Washington Beltway riding alone in the backseat of a SDC.

    2. Re:exempt automakers from safety standards??? by DickBreath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the self driving car is not at fault in the accident (the vast majority of present day cases), then the self driving car has tons of data both in visible light and other parts of the spectrum to show everything that happened prior to the crash.

      It is an inevitability, once statistics catch up with it, that a self driving car will be the cause of a major accident. I doubt that this can ever be a criminal trial, because no criminal intent is involved at any level of the design or implementation of the self driving car. It's an accident.

      As more self driving car accidents occur, the self driving cars will get better and better at avoiding them (unlike puny humans). If for no other reason than the designers will make improvements based on all of the data from each accident.

      In court, the lawyers can argue about how the self driving car came to the decision to run over a group of people whose skin color it did not like. There won't be any NDAs. The owner of the technology will file a motion to keep the technology under seal. It will be discussed in court, but in a closed courtroom, with court members bound to secrecy about the technology. This is nothing new.

      BTW, I'm all for requiring safety standards of automakers. (OMG! regulation!) As long as you can quantify it in a way that is clear in the law. You can't have laws that are so vague that you can unintentionally violate them. There needs to be a bright line.

      The line cannot be that no accidents can occur -- because self driving cars are already safer than cars driven by puny humans.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    3. Re:exempt automakers from safety standards??? by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'd do it. It's safer than riding with my wife driving. Hell, it's safer than the majority of drivers. 34% have admitted to texting and driving and over half talking on a cell phone and driving. Then there are all the ones that should never have gotten a drivers license to start with. I was in Germany in the 80s and I was amazed at how many Americans failed the test to get a license to drive in Germany. I worked with ppl that took it 3 or 4 times before passing. My wife took it 3 times and gave up, she never drove at all in Europe.

    4. Re:exempt automakers from safety standards??? by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      I think what we're going to find is that when cars don't have to deal with fussy/loud children, not getting enough sleep, being too drunk/high, thinking about their ex breaking up with them last week, getting/not getting that raise/promotion etc etc and it can just concentrate on driving.... that self driving cars are already way, way more safe than slow meat-based human drivers. And they'll only continue to improve. Yes, there will be the inevitable fatality where the automated car kills a human, but working in Mountain View (where google does their self driving car testing) I'm nearly run over by inattentive human drivers all the time. The automated cars are so wary of me as a pedestrian that they stop a full 20-30 feet away even before I leave the curb.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    5. Re:exempt automakers from safety standards??? by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      I just hope they don't become mandatory....I prefer the fun of driving myself, hence my always buying sports/performance cars.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    6. Re:exempt automakers from safety standards??? by peragrin · · Score: 1

      The better question is how are state right government republicans pushing a federal government regulations on what is normally a state level?

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    7. Re:exempt automakers from safety standards??? by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      self driving cars are already safer than cars driven by puny humans.

      I don't think you can really say that road conditions vary day to day and by region, I doubt the self driving car has been tested in all those varied conditions.

      I could tell you some anecdotes about drivers from Southern Texas and other places that don't get much if any snow driving on snow for the first time or I could tell you about the places where cellular and gps don't work or bridges that have wind gusts that catch even a seasoned driver off guard. Most of the self driving cars I hear about being tested aren't being tested in snow and rain.

    8. Re:exempt automakers from safety standards??? by geekmux · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You can't have laws that are so vague that you can unintentionally violate them.

      No, but you can certainly have punishments so weak that manufacturers will find it worth it to intentionally violate them. You know, like bypassing security in order to be first to market. Not that we've ever seen that shit happen before...(cough, IoT, cough)

      The line cannot be that no accidents can occur -- because self driving cars are already safer than cars driven by puny humans.

      Let's see how the masses feel when they find out a loved one was one of 100,000 people killed after a DDoS-style mass attack against autonomous vehicles takes place in a major city. Watch as the manufacturer demands closed-door legal proceedings and produces redacted shit detailing their fault, negotiating death caused by an insecure product down to a free cup of fucking coffee for the next of kin.

      If companies are already looking to push this technology by requesting a pass on current regulation, then it will probably go to market like damn near every other mass-produced thing we make, meaning shit for security. And I've already explained why they will do this; because it will be worth it.

    9. Re:exempt automakers from safety standards??? by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

      They are trying to do things like exempt them from having to have mirrors, window washers, etc.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    10. Re:exempt automakers from safety standards??? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Great, let me get that coded up for you.... Let's see, I think I'll use C, agile development and run it on my old Pentium 90 I was going to toss into the recycling bin next week....

      If you make it onto the expressway alive, I'm pretty sure something bad is going to happen.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    11. Re:exempt automakers from safety standards??? by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The line cannot be that no accidents can occur -- because self driving cars are already safer than cars driven by puny humans.

      This is the point that I hope gets understood sooner rather than later. Accidents happen currently to the tune of ~3000 people dying a month and many times that injured. If self driving cars reduce this then progress has been made. The data I've seen is that self driving / driver assist reduces car accidents by ~20% and injuries by ~25%. That's huge. As long as some jackass lawyer doesn't get to have punitive damages that are in excess of what a regular driver would get then it should be fine. Meaning that if Ford doesn't get fined more than some random human driver then it will be OK since insurance can cover those cases.

      Citations:

      https://www.digitaltrends.com/...

    12. Re:exempt automakers from safety standards??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Replace every instance of "self-driving car" you just wrote with "plane" and you have the same argument. Except it hasn't happened.

      That's because the FAA has serious teeth.

      No way in hell would the DO-178 set of software development regs be allowed to be required of car automation. And Congress just guaranteed that.

    13. Re:exempt automakers from safety standards??? by fluffernutter · · Score: 2, Flamebait

      You have only seen data from self driving that either A) has a human to correct for it, or B) drives only where driving is simple and straightforward. We don't know if self driving will ever be adequate for all conditions. And self driving has made progress on those dead or injured only as long as it hasn't injured or killed anyone else that wouldn't have died otherwise.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    14. Re:exempt automakers from safety standards??? by Ultra64 · · Score: 1
      Way to not read the whole sentence:

      to exempt automakers from safety standards not applicable to the technology

    15. Re:exempt automakers from safety standards??? by Ultra64 · · Score: 1

      Too bad technology can never, ever be improved once it has been created.

    16. Re:exempt automakers from safety standards??? by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      When I drive in Atlanta I'm wrapped in a 2.5 ton steel machine that is on a full steel frame. It's a 2003 Mercury Grand Marquis and in one accident a toyota splattered itself to pieces on the side of it and 1,000 dollars later my car was fine. I'm still afraid, not because of me but because of the idiots that change lanes without looking, talking on phones, texting and just flat out stoned. I'll settle for lack of control if it will solve the problem of all these idiots flying around not paying attention to the road. Over 40K dead last year, that doesn't count the numbers hurt and maimed.

    17. Re:exempt automakers from safety standards??? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Replace every instance of "self-driving car" you just wrote with "plane" and you have the same argument. Except it hasn't happened.

      "Planes" are one of the more regulated activities, and yet there are still aircraft "accidents" that occur due to aircraft failures, and aircraft accidents that do not happen despite aircraft failures simply because there was a human aboard to manage the situation.

      There is a reason there are a dozen or so ways to disable the autopilot on an aircraft and that several of them are tested before each and every flight. It isn't because of how reliable and safe autopilots have turned out to be over the years.

      Were there a move to deregulate safety regulations at the federal level to increase the number of aircraft in use, and no increase in accidents your statement might make sense. Since there has been no activity towards that end your attempt at changing the words does not work.

    18. Re: exempt automakers from safety standards??? by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Well until competent drivers are able to drive 100% of the time distraction free, we're going to have to look for alternatives.
       
      Driving on 8 hours good sleep with a cup of coffee in you, and no passengers driving below the speed limit, sure humans are great, but the number of times that happens is a lot lower than most people would like to admit. Maybe you follow the rules, but do you trust everyone else to as well?

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    19. Re:exempt automakers from safety standards??? by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      You just described every public bus experience. I mean, minus the duct tape and wheelchair part.

    20. Re:exempt automakers from safety standards??? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      The automated cars are so wary of me as a pedestrian that they stop a full 20-30 feet away even before I leave the curb.

      This is a certain recipe for gridlock in many places, such as college towns. Any vehicle that stops for you before you leave the curb will find itself sitting stock still in any situation where there is anyone on the sidewalk, whether they intend to cross or not.

      Note that the law (at least in Oregon) does not require anyone to stop for a pedestrian before they leave the curb, and thus every AV that follows your "stop" rule will be a traffic hazard to every human-operated vehicle that does not expect sudden, unrequired stops from other vehicles.

      Try it some day, preferably when I am not also using the road you are on. Try stopping at random and for no apparent reason every twenty feet and see how safe you are making things for everyone involved.

    21. Re:exempt automakers from safety standards??? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Too bad technology can never, ever be improved once it has been created.

      Three years into a 100,000 car/year introduction of AV and you will have a huge percentage of those vehicles that will be the same technology as they were when they drove off the dealer's lot. I know for a fact that the 2005 vehicle I use every day is the same 2005 technology, despite it being 2017 in this part of the world.

    22. Re: exempt automakers from safety standards??? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Well until competent drivers are able to drive 100% of the time distraction free, we're going to have to look for alternatives.

      Are you trying to claim that AV will be operating 100% percent of the time distraction free? "AV, change your destination ..." Dog runs into the road. Child runs into the road. Sun glint obscures the camera that watches for red lights/stop signs. Pot hole ahead! Person standing on the corner looking across the street, but chatting with the person next to them instead of crossing. Person walking BACKWARDS through a crosswalk (I've seen it.)

      Distraction free? No, I don't think so.

      Maybe you follow the rules, but do you trust everyone else to as well?

      As another poster has commented, the AV he sees being tested come to a stop 20-30 feet away from people before they have entered the street. This is not following the rules. So no, I do not trust AV to follow the rules, either. Any claim that AV will be inherently safer because they will "follow the rules" is obviously false.

    23. Re:exempt automakers from safety standards??? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      ICC. Auto manufacturers rarely have production facilities in every state where they sell cars, thus automobile sales clearly involves interstate commerce. Further, automobiles, as in 'mobiles', often cross state lines; therefore legislation that reduces different laws for different areas is justified. E.g., there is a reason why there is a standard for stop signs.

    24. Re:exempt automakers from safety standards??? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Way to not read the whole sentence:

      to exempt automakers from safety standards not applicable to the technology

      Since "the technology" will require the ability of a human to take control of the vehicle and operate it safely when the AV fails or enters conditions that it is not designed to handle, then this means exempting automakers from existing safety standards such that it makes human operation of the vehicle less, if not completely, unsafe.

    25. Re: exempt automakers from safety standards??? by Hadlock · · Score: 2

      I deal with these things daily, ride my bike in traffic with them daily, they're just cautiously driven cars. Maybe when you finally see and interact with one you will understand.
       
      In the case you state ,that was me, I was facing with the direction of traffic, about 2' from the road at the crosswalk, then turned 180 degrees to face traffic. The car sensed that I was changing direction (lidar is amazing, can track rotation of objects) and towards the lane. By the time my right foot hit the ground (about 8" closer to the curb) the car came to a stop, it had decided there was a good chance I was going to enter the crosswalk.
       
      Now, granted, I did NOT step in to the crosswalk, but the important thing here is that it saw my change in direction and picked up my foot and started moving closer to the street, near a crosswalk. It predicted that I was going to enter the crosswalk and so it stopped, rather than risk running me over. How cool is that?
       
        These cars aren't just stopping and starting in a herky-jerky motion, they're keeping track of everything on the street and their relative motion to the street. I'm sure after that event the engineers tweaked the predictive levels for stopping the car, but overall I feel extremely safe around them and trust them quite a bit more than humans at this point. The drivers are generally pretty chilled out, attentive, but not having a bad time being driven about.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    26. Re: exempt automakers from safety standards??? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      In the case you state ,that was me,

      I didn't bother going back a couple of levels to figure out who said what. Doesn't matter.

      I was facing with the direction of traffic, about 2' from the road at the crosswalk, then turned 180 degrees to face traffic.

      So you weren't facing the street, you were facing against the flow of traffic. That's not an indication that you are intending to cross. It's an indication that you want to go back the way you came.

      the car came to a stop, it had decided there was a good chance I was going to enter the crosswalk.

      Unfortunately, the rules (as they exist in my state) say nothing about "a good chance" or a confusing description that has you facing parallel to the curb but somehow stepping towards it. You had not entered the crosswalk, the vehicle was stopping for no legally valid reason.

      It predicted that I was going to enter the crosswalk and so it stopped, rather than risk running me over. How cool is that?

      Not very, as I've already explained. Random stops for no reason are not conducive to safety to others, and will result in gridlock in situation where there is anyone standing on a sidewalk -- they MIGHT maybe guessing want to cross!

      I'm sure after that event the engineers tweaked the predictive levels for stopping the car,

      And for a production vehicle, I'm sure that there would be no engineers tweaking anything, it would continue down the street and then stop again for someone who wasn't crossing, and then again a bit further on...

      but overall I feel extremely safe around them and trust them quite a bit more than humans at this point.

      You are demonstrating the quite selfish attitude of a pedestrian who expects every vehicle within 100 feet of him to kowtow to his every whim, anticipating his every action, and doing nothing that might ever result in him being hurt no matter how stupidly he is behaving. I see this regularly, with the fool who steps into the crosswalk as a car is just a couple of feet from entering it, hoping that the laws of man (car must stop before entering the crosswalk) will supersede the laws of physics (coefficient of friction of rubber/asphalt sufficient to halt the vehicle prior to entering the crosswalk and creaming the ped).

      There are other cars on the street, and their safety needs to be a concern, too. A car that stops unexpectedly for no reason in traffic is creating a hazard. It is less safe for others.

      The drivers are generally pretty chilled out, attentive, but not having a bad time being driven about.

      I really cannot figure out what drivers you are talking about here. The AVs have none; driversof non-AV are not "being driven about", they are being faced with AV that aren't following the rules of the road and are stopping for no reason. Yes, they should be defensive drivers and ready to deal with this stupidity just as they would for a human driver that slams on the brakes for no reason, but the hazard is there when it need not be.

    27. Re:exempt automakers from safety standards??? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Too bad they don't even try to improve it so that it's reasonable before it gets put on the market,

      To quote someone else loosely: it is unconscionable that SDC technology is not already being adopted. There is no time for "reasonable" improvements or further study. Today is now.

    28. Re:exempt automakers from safety standards??? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      What do you mean? They're doing the best they can. Adaptive cruise control is currently the best they can do without getting sued and it has been released. Even something as simple as that, I wonder how far it can be trusted. Sometimes mine doesn't sense the car in front of me.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    29. Re: exempt automakers from safety standards??? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      The most important difference between a human and an automatic driver is that when the automated driver gets confused or blinded it will always do the same thing: pull over and stop as soon as it's safe to do so. Humans, unfortunately, are impatient creatures who tend to plow right ahead and hope there's nothing in front of them and hope they'll be able to regain their bearings in time.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    30. Re:exempt automakers from safety standards??? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Funny.... out of 90% of "sports cars" I see on the road, none are being driven like sports cars - usually some middle-aged middling-ego middle-manager behind the wheel who's too busy texting or talking on the phone to actually drive.

      Not me...I don't generally even answer the phone for voice in the car, and do NOT text (read or write).

      I do this because I like to drive FAST...and I know I need to pay attention to road conditions and traffic around me.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    31. Re:exempt automakers from safety standards??? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      There are some real freaky people supporting autonomous driving as it stands today. Difficult to have a level-headed conversation about it.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    32. Re:exempt automakers from safety standards??? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      To add to this, I'm sure if I got in my vehicle with a blindfold on, put it into drive, and hit the accelerator, I would be found criminally responsible for whatever damaged I caused. I don't see why it would be any different for an automaker who feels their software can drive by the array of sensors the car is outfitted with but causes an accident.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    33. Re: exempt automakers from safety standards??? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Yes you're right, and an automated vehicle didn't get so blinded by the sun that it thought a truck was a bridge awhile back.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    34. Re:exempt automakers from safety standards??? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      I doubt that this can ever be a criminal trial, because no criminal intent is involved at any level of the design or implementation of the self driving car. It's an accident.

      The two highest levels of culpability, purposely or knowingly probably not. The two lowest levels, recklessness and negligence can most certainly happen. The former would be where the court finds that there was a programming decision made to ignore a potentially dangerous condition, the latter if it failed to recognize the condition or react in a reasonable manner. It's unlikely that any person will be held criminally liable, unless it's a matter of deliberate cheating like the emissions scandal but the company can certainly see a criminal prosecution. For them it's not that different from a civil case though, it's all just money. Though if the court revokes the company's driving license, it could be a lot of money...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    35. Re:exempt automakers from safety standards??? by quantaman · · Score: 1

      The line cannot be that no accidents can occur -- because self driving cars are already safer than cars driven by puny humans.

      And what's your evidence for this rather bold assertion?

      I have no doubt that self-driving cars *can* be safer than human-driven cars, but I'm quite dubious that they are there already. I'm even less certain that the current state of partially self-driving cars is safer than purely human-driven cars in the long run.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    36. Re:exempt automakers from safety standards??? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      I mean, minus the duct tape and wheelchair part.

      Sounds like somebody hasn't been on public buses in the right cities.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    37. Re:exempt automakers from safety standards??? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When I drive in Atlanta I'm wrapped in a 2.5 ton steel machine that is on a full steel frame. It's a 2003 Mercury Grand Marquis and in one accident a toyota splattered itself to pieces on the side of it and 1,000 dollars later my car was fine. I'm still afraid, not because of me

      Well, you probably should be because you're clearly poor at making choices. The "splattering" you so deride is caused by things called "crumple zones". Those absorb the energy of the impact so that the car splatters, not you. That person's car going "splatter" likely saved *you* from serious injuries. You're basically gambling that most people have safer cars than you and that one of those unsafe car drivers won't be the one to hit you.

      What's amazing is you clearly know how dangerous the roads are, yet knowingly drive a car that doesn't have good crash test ratings.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    38. Re:exempt automakers from safety standards??? by geekmux · · Score: 2

      Replace every instance of "self-driving car" you just wrote with "plane" and you have the same argument. Except it hasn't happened.

      Every commercial airliner is equipped with autopilot. You still will not see one leave the ground without a trained and certified human pilot. There's a reason for that.

      The move for autonomous cars is looking to eliminate the human driver altogether. We're even questioning the need for training or licensing human drivers in the future.

      And from a regulatory standpoint, they aren't even fucking close, so lets stop trying to compare apples and oranges.

    39. Re:exempt automakers from safety standards??? by sabbede · · Score: 1

      Well, side impact is where the 2003 is weakest, and it seems like he came through just fine.

    40. Re: exempt automakers from safety standards??? by sabbede · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because the software needs more testing on the road which should now be easier to do, right?

    41. Re:exempt automakers from safety standards??? by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      I'll restate it to say that it WON'T be, rather than it CAN'T be. That is, the bright line will not be that no accidents can occur. The benefits of self driving cars vastly outweigh the fact that they are imperfect. Just like aviation. It's too valuable not to have, even though planes do sometimes have spectacular accidents. Either way, planes or self driving cars, it's safer than cars driven by puny, unreliable, distractable, masturbating, humans talking on a cell phone with one hand, while using their other hand to flick a cigarette out the open driver side window.

      I agree that self driving cars are probably not yet ready to be unleashed on the public. They will always be five years out, for about the next twenty years. But I have no doubt they will become a reality. Other technologies didn't start out perfect, but eventually do reach a point where the drawbacks simply are are outweighed by the benefits. A good example is gasoline powered internal combustion automobiles. These new automobile thingies will never catch on. Some dreamers think they will one day replace our beautiful horse drawn carriages. But automobiles are noisy. Smelly. Unreliable. You can break your arm if the engine backfires while you are cranking it. And worst of all, these automobile thingies frighten the horses. They'll never catch on. And because self driving cars have drawbacks, they'll never catch on either.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    42. Re:exempt automakers from safety standards??? by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      Trade secrets CAN be kept in court, even as a case proceeds. The owner of the secrets can ask for, and upon good showing of why, can get a court ordered seal of the secrets. Those secrets can be discussed in a closed court. Court documents are filed under seal. Participants and lawyers are bound to secrecy -- with real penalties, including contempt of court if they ever improperly disclose the secrets. This happens already in real court cases. The secrecy doesn't prevent the court case from proceeding.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    43. Re:exempt automakers from safety standards??? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Mine hasn't failed to pick up something in front of it. I don't trust it for people cutting me off, as it doesn't have a wide enough field of view to react to anyone in the next lane. I'm not real impressed by the driving ability of someone who will merge into my lane right in front of me while going significantly slower, unless there's some sort of unusual condition, but it's not a use case I can simply ignore without consequences.

      My lane following isn't smooth. I don't want to rely on it.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    44. Re:exempt automakers from safety standards??? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Good thing you got the parenthesis in.

      As if it were just luck, and I didn't understand that the laws differ from place to place. Sheesh.

      Over here, you are required to stop at a pedestrian crossing if there are people close to it.

      What an amazingly stupid law. Someone walking past a crosswalk forces cars to stop as if they were going to cross.

      There are examples of driving ed teachers needing to get out of the car to ask people to hang out somewhere not right next to a pedestrian crossing.

      How dare he! I mean the driving instructor. Doesn't he know that pedestrians are the only concern? But then, it is an amazingly stupid law for just such a reason. I could force all traffic to a complete halt by just standing on the corner with no intention of crossing. While I can stand IN the crosswalk on an Oregon street and force cars to stop for a bit, once they realize I have no intent to cross they can proceed. IN the crosswalk with the intent to cross. That's how we deal with stupid or malicious pedestrians.

    45. Re: exempt automakers from safety standards??? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      when the automated driver gets confused or blinded it will always do the same thing: pull over and stop as soon as it's safe to do so.

      If it is confused or blinded, it by definition cannot know when it is safe to move, even if that is just to pull over and stop. Woopsies, it didn't see that bike rider passing him on the right and now someone is dead.

      Claiming special status as to safety because it will make some "known operation" when it gets confused is not supporting the claim that AV will be magically safe.

    46. Re:exempt automakers from safety standards??? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      It is rated poor from side impact. Still and all smaller vehicles aren't dangerous to it and that's almost everything out there other than trucks nowadays. I figure once they have a reasonable priced 300 mile electric car available I'll probably move to that. Until then the one I have is paid for and sufficient. I'll keep the Tank for trips to Big-A Town.

  2. "94% of crashes involve human error" by queazocotal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And a sizeable fraction of the remainder would be eliminated by automatic monitoring of car performance. (brake failure due to neglect say).
    Then there are those accidents that are 'unavoidable' (debris falling on road say).

    But become not-unavoidable if you have an AI with reflexes beyond a trained stunt/rally driver who has a week to prepare.

    1. Re:"94% of crashes involve human error" by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Sure you'll cut down on 99% of accidents, but it's still useful to test the hell out of automated cars to make sure we know what they do, if for no other reason than to be able to put it in writing so that owners are aware. To illustrate, what should the expected behavior be if the vehicle suddenly finds itself in a situation where it needs to choose between one action that will almost certainly result in the death of a pedestrian or where the other course of action results in the death of the passengers?

      I think most people would be in favor of a vehicle that prioritizes their own safety over others when those are the possible outcomes, rare as those situations may be. The sheer amount of driving that will be done (automated vehicles are going to result in more miles driven overall) still means that there are going to be accidents even though the individual odds are decreased by two orders of magnitude.

    2. Re:"94% of crashes involve human error" by PPH · · Score: 1

      What's so confusing about this?

      "What's the problem, officer? I didn't make a mark on it. I drove right by."

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:"94% of crashes involve human error" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Drunk driving, driving while severely fatigued would contribute largely to the numbers, I'd wager. Would be interesting to see a breakdown of causes besides a catch-all "human error".

    4. Re:"94% of crashes involve human error" by Kierthos · · Score: 2
      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    5. Re:"94% of crashes involve human error" by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      it's still useful to test the hell out of automated cars to make sure we know what they do

      No, that is not useful. Considering that 3000 people per day die worldwide in HDC accidents, any delay in the adoption of SDCs is unconscionable.

    6. Re:"94% of crashes involve human error" by tsstahl · · Score: 1

      Considering that 3000 people per day die worldwide in HDC accidents, any delay in the adoption of SDCs is unconscionable.

      Self driving vehicles are such a first world problem. The vast majority of the world where those deaths occur feature unnavigable "roads" for a self driving vehicle.
      I would far sooner trust a llama to get me up a Chilean mountain road, if only because the llama has a stake in the outcome.

      Hot Wheels work best on little orange tracks.

    7. Re:"94% of crashes involve human error" by queazocotal · · Score: 1

      I do not in principle wholly disagree. However, it seems at least very reasonable that it can likely dramatically exceed the driving standards of most drivers most of the time, and reduce both accidents and accident severity significantly over what human drivers or most subsets of them achieve.

    8. Re:"94% of crashes involve human error" by zlives · · Score: 1

      you failed to mention the most obvious issue that any tech related site should mention...
      the possibility that at 88mph... BSOD

    9. Re:"94% of crashes involve human error" by zlives · · Score: 1

      its interesting that during the last almost 30 years of driving, i am not one of those statistics, but i could be one in the future no fault of my own.

    10. Re:"94% of crashes involve human error" by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      That's a problem with a technologically easy solution. Why not have the cars read a digital stop sign instead of relying on a physical indication? Granted, full integration will take a while, but I think that adding some NFC-ish chips to stop signs can outpace vandalism.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    11. Re:"94% of crashes involve human error" by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      But automated cars are controlled by computers that make decisions in fractions of a second! They should absolutely be able to avoid debris falling on the road. If they don't have the sensors for it, then that's a problem.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    12. Re:"94% of crashes involve human error" by stevelinton · · Score: 1

      In most places the computers controlling the car have maps that already tell them the location of all the roadsigns to within a few millimeters. They'll stop because they haven't been told there isn't a stop sign there, and just use the cameras to look out for unexpected new stop signs for the few minutes from when they are put in until the map updates propagate.

      If all cars are self-driving you don't need the signs at all, just a shared map annotated with traffic flow restrictions.
      If all cars are guaranteed to be continuously in communication you can go further and redesign the traffic flow across each junction continuously in real time.

    13. Re:"94% of crashes involve human error" by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      But automated cars are controlled by computers that make decisions in fractions of a second! They should absolutely be able to avoid debris falling on the road.

      Let's test that hypothesis. You get your AV going down I5 at posted legal speed and I'll drop a rock on it from an overpass. I predict your AV will not avoid "debris falling on the road" when the laws of physics say your AV cannot stop in time to avoid hitting/being hit by it.

      If they don't have the sensors for it, then that's a problem.

      I have three significant chips in my windshield that came from small rocks being kicked up by trucks in front of me. I challenge you to have a camera with sufficient resolution, and computer with sufficient processing speed, to detect, much less avoid such damage. Then consider that the camera you may have trying to detect this stuff may be the target of that rock, and it becomes not so good for much.

    14. Re:"94% of crashes involve human error" by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Well we're talking about debris falling on the road sizable enough to cause an accident, not rock chips. They should absolutely be able to detect a kid on a bridge about to drop a rock.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    15. Re:"94% of crashes involve human error" by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Well we're talking about debris falling on the road sizable enough to cause an accident, not rock chips.

      A common concept in aviation is that every accident begins as a sequence of events that aren't necessarily individually fatal. In this case, as I pointed out, that "rock chip" may be taking one of your sensors out of operation. That's the starting link in the chain.

      They should absolutely be able to detect a kid on a bridge about to drop a rock.

      "Hopeless optimism" is not a very good way to design safety systems. That you think an AV computer can detect a "kid on a bridge holding a rock" (when the kid may be on the downstream side of the bridge and completely hidden from the AV until he's in the rear-view mirror) AND that his intent is to drop that rock, is cute but, as the topic sentence alludes to, hopelessly optimistic.

      I think the challenge stands, and that the AV will be the loser in any such confrontation. "Falling debris" is not a solved problem.

    16. Re:"94% of crashes involve human error" by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      The vast majority of the world where those deaths occur feature unnavigable "roads" for a self driving vehicle.

      The country with the most traffic fatalities is China, with about 260,000 deaths annually. China's road infrastructure in many areas is better/newer than America's.

    17. Re:"94% of crashes involve human error" by Whibla · · Score: 1
  3. dealer only service with oil changes each 3000 mil by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    dealer only service with oil changes each 3000 miles will drive profits up.

  4. Percentage by aicrules · · Score: 1, Troll

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says 94 percent of crashes involve human error.

    I look forward to a day where 94% of crashes involve computer error instead. That will make dying hurt less right?

    1. Re:Percentage by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      I do not look forward to car crashes caused by computer error.

      Car crashes should be caused by humans, like in the olden days. Humans. Far away. Possibly another continent. In the dark comfort of their mom's basement.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    2. Re:Percentage by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That will make dying hurt less right?

      No, but the ~90% reduction in auto-related fatalities will.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    3. Re:Percentage by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      So we identify the human driver as the cause of 94% of accidents. This suggests that one way to make the roads safer is to replace the human---making the world better with technology. You respond to this with sarcasm and hostility? What kind of geek are you? Why are you even here?

      Bear in mind that computers are the primary "driver" in a number of other vehicles. Guided missiles and spacecraft stand out, in particular.

      Those earlier milestones were simpler because there are fewer variables. We essentially solved those problems 30 years ago. The only really novel problem with self-driving cars is interpreting all of the incoming sensor data, and deep learning is very effective at this sort of task. We finally have the missing piece that lets us do this in an active, stimulus-heavy environment. That is the true technical barrier, and, for the first time in decades, it appears we have a means of overcoming it.

      The first autonomous vehicles are already out there accruing miles, data, and hard-won experience for the engineers. Private citizens will be getting 2nd- or 3rd-gen systems at the earliest, which will perform even better.

      This may happen sooner than you think. Regulatory hurdles are a major problem, and those are being streamlined now.

      And remember, computers can't be perfect. To be a sensible replacement, however, they just have to be better than the average human.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    4. Re:Percentage by geekmux · · Score: 1

      That will make dying hurt less right? No, but the ~90% reduction in auto-related fatalities will.

      Have advancements in computers caused a ~90% reduction in the number of bugs, debilitating hacks and successful attacks?

      I rest my case. Removing human drivers will do little more than create a massive risk from autonomous solutions rushed to market, riddled with shit security. Deaths will occur, and manufacturers will get a slap on the wrist for causing it, just like they do with inferior solutions today.

      From a psychological point of view, it's a lot easier for humans to accept when a human makes a deadly mistake behind the wheel. Won't be so damn easy to watch a vehicle mega-corp get away with vehicular manslaughter because drivers clicked "I Agree".

    5. Re:Percentage by stevelinton · · Score: 2

      But advancements in mechanical technology, combined with standards, enforcement, liability etc. have led to a massive reduction in the number of random dangerous mechanical failures in correctly maintained vehicles.

    6. Re:Percentage by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      Have advancements in computers caused a ~90% reduction in the number of bugs, debilitating hacks and successful attacks?

      Since when? You're talking about a field that has seen explosive growth in just the last 20 years. If you've got a graph that says that hacks, etc. have ouptaced adoption of IT technology by several factors, great. Otherwise, this is a pointless argument.

      riddled with shit security

      That's better. But I doubt hackers are going to be responsible for more than a handful of deaths for a variety of reasons, especially since we treat cars a lot differently than we do PCs, both on a cultural and technological level.

      Won't be so damn easy to watch a vehicle mega-corp get away with vehicular manslaughter because drivers clicked "I Agree".

      I have several trial lawyers on speed dial who'd be happy to laugh at you. We've been putting up with industrial accidents for over a century, and industry almost always wins. I don't know why you think this case will be any different.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    7. Re:Percentage by geekmux · · Score: 1

      But advancements in mechanical technology, combined with standards, enforcement, liability etc. have led to a massive reduction in the number of random dangerous mechanical failures in correctly maintained vehicles.

      30 years ago, you mainly had to worry about the adult-aged drunk on the road. Today, you have to worry about damn near every driver on the road, since 99.999% of them have a smartphone with them, and the majority of them like to distract themselves by using it behind the wheel. Oh, and did I forget to mention the added bonus of a pill-popping society of opiate addicts driving around? Can't forget to give credit to Big Pharma for that one.

      Leave it to the masses to counteract all those technological advancements by building a better idiot.

      Oh, and they don't teach people how to properly maintain their vehicles anymore. That whole DIY mentality died off long ago when an $800 wrench and a diagnostic analysis was needed to change the fucking oil. Random dangerous mechanical failures still happen; you simply don't hear about them until enough deaths occur to justify the class-action lawsuit and recall. Liability and punishment has become a joke for mega-corps these days.

  5. Re:dealer only service with oil changes each 3000 by Kierthos · · Score: 1

    So, slightly on topic story. I got a new car a little over three years ago. When it got to 3000 or so miles on the odometer, I took it to a service station to get the oil changed. They told me that it really only needs it every 4000-5000 miles depending on the car. That the old "every three months or 3000 miles" adage really doesn't apply any more.

    --
    Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
  6. So... by Kierthos · · Score: 1

    If you read the article (heresy, I know), you'd see that some of the safety standards that would be "relaxed" are things like brake pedals, steering wheels and the like. Which, if it's a self-driving car that is not intended to have a human driver ever (as is, it's not an option at all), that makes sense.

    I tend to think that's going to be a harder sell to the typical American, though.

    I mean, it's one thing for a car to have the options for both human driving AND autopilot. Some people will be leery of that, but then they just won't use the autopilot. But a car that only has a self-driving option? A lot of people won't buy cars like that, for a variety of reasons.

    --
    Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    1. Re:So... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Bluetooth. Bring your own game controller. No wheels or KB/mouse, that gives you an unfair advantage over other drivers.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:So... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Study their habits. I bet they're easily bluffed.

      I suggest painting playing children on your car. That will get the AI cars panic braking whenever you want their lane.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  7. When folk start dying in accident caused by .... by lkroll4565 · · Score: 1

    ....self driving cars, we shall see this idiocy repealed. Trust me; you won't see me getting in a car that drives itself any time soon. Any machine can be corrupted by a hack. I still remember watching what almost happened to Will Smith's character in iRobot and that was enough for me to realize, there's no way you can safeguard the controls to my liking since what can be thought up will happen. Maybe over decades, I might change my opinion, but so far I'm not impressed. :)

  8. Re:dealer only service with oil changes each 3000 by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    I've heard the same, even longer periods for some cars. Lots of the old rules for cars are obsolete. I use the hard break-in technique for my vehicles. Used on 3 new vehicles no problems.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  9. Re:dealer only service with oil changes each 3000 by chuckugly · · Score: 1

    My VW tells me to take it to service every 10K miles or once a year. All hail synth lube.

  10. Meh. by PPH · · Score: 1

    Automobile design and performance standards are pretty much set at the federal level anyway. A few states (California, for example) have stricter emissions standards. But it's time to put a stop to that B.S.

    I can take practically any vehicle legally operable in one state and drive it across the border into another anyway. So state by state laws really don't accomplish much other than to protect local market channels.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Meh. by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      I can take practically any vehicle legally operable in one state and drive it across the border into another anyway

      For a relatively brief period of time.

      If the vehicle is going to remain in that new state, you'll have to register it in the new state. And it's at the registration step where the state's standards come into play.

    2. Re:Meh. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      If you have multiple legal addresses, you can maintain legal residency in the state of your, more or less, choice. Car is registered at your home address, it's just visiting with you, when in the other state.

      CA has fucked up car laws. I drove an out of state registered car for a few years when I first moved here. Now I just cheat on smog, but that's another thread.

      CA is still better than some states. IIRC there are some where you can't put so much as a flowmaster on your car. Car asthma is required by law.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:Meh. by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      If you have multiple legal addresses, you can maintain legal residency in the state of your, more or less, choice.

      Nope. At least, not in many states. The car has to be registered where it is primarily used, not your legal residency.

      CA has fucked up car laws. I drove an out of state registered car for a few years when I first moved here.

      Same thing happens in all states. Fortunately by being in CA you were much less likely to have the locals turn to tickets as a primary revenue stream, so you got away with it.

      And as someone who got to experience the joys of air in Los Angeles before CA emissions really clamped down, the "ha ha! I broke the law" angle is not exactly appealing. Might as well brag about eating rancid meat, health code be damned!!

  11. Remove the impediments by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

    I guess a self-driving taxi and freight truck would go without driver airbags, driver steering wheel, and driver pedal, since the idea is to not pay a driver--you still have to pay a driver for lounging around in your car all day when he could be at home lounging around in front of the TV or digging in the garden.

    As for "speed deployment", that's not quite it.

    If we lose a few thousand or tens of thousands of jobs a month to new technologies, that's just business as usual: the .01% nudge in unemployment is felt by the unemployed (hence why we need stronger protections for people's economic security), and the rest of the economy goes on to shift around buying power and draw new labor elsewhere. All in all, this is what causes progress, increased standards of living, and wealth, and is just what happens constantly and continuously.

    If we hold that back, mature the technology, then have a breakthrough with low-cost, highly-effective, well-tested technology coming to replace 3 million jobs at once, we get a sudden 2% bump in unemployment. We also get a loss in the jobs supporting those employed, and supporting the parts of their function that replace the robots. That kind of hammer coming over the span of a couple months--everyone rushing at once to fire all of you and replace you with a small shell script--doesn't speak of unemployment insurance and negligible economic effects; it looks like the dot-com bust.

    You don't want technical revolutions. You want to bleed slowly over a long period of time, giving each wound a chance to heal. A quick stab through the heart and you just die as half your blood pumps out onto the floor. Get the regulations out of the way before the businesses are all begging to go live; give them the green light when none of them are ready to move yet, when nothing's ready for them yet, and when the whole process is going to drag out as slowly as it possibly can.

  12. It won't be safer for long by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

    I have no doubt based on the behavior I see on the road every day in the large American metropolitan area I live and work in that once self driving cars become ubiquitous, somebody is going to figure out how to hack the AI to make it more aggressive. I see people all the time who take crazy chances on the road to get in front of other drivers. Human beings are really good at being jerks and ruining a good thing for everybody else by exploiting it first. So I expect somebody to figure out how to make the AI make the car its controlling go as fast as possible after a light goes green and do other perhaps risky behaviors under the assumption that the others cars will have AI that will let them. Once that happens, it probably will get very unsafe with large numbers of hacked cards jockeying for position all the time on the road under the assumption that the other guy will obey the rules so they don't have to.

    1. Re:It won't be safer for long by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      I have no doubt based on the behavior I see on the road every day in the large American metropolitan area I live and work in that once self driving cars become ubiquitous, somebody is going to figure out how to hack the AI to make it more aggressive. I see people all the time who take crazy chances on the road to get in front of other drivers. Human beings are really good at being jerks and ruining a good thing for everybody else by exploiting it first. So I expect somebody to figure out how to make the AI make the car its controlling go as fast as possible after a light goes green and do other perhaps risky behaviors under the assumption that the others cars will have AI that will let them. Once that happens, it probably will get very unsafe with large numbers of hacked cards jockeying for position all the time on the road under the assumption that the other guy will obey the rules so they don't have to.

      Maybe. I see it largely going the other way where people care less about getting a few car lengths ahead because they are watching a movie or playing on their phone.

    2. Re:It won't be safer for long by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Maybe. I see it largely going the other way where people care less about getting a few car lengths ahead because they are watching a movie or playing on their phone.

      Nope. I watch movies and play on the phone now and I know it is much safer to do that when I am more car lengths ahead of someone else than following behind him.

      People will hack the AI because it exists. Owners will do so because it will make their car cooler. Others will do it because it is a challenge and they can get their leet haxor creds by causing damage.

    3. Re:It won't be safer for long by Whibla · · Score: 1

      ... I know it is much safer to do that when I am more car lengths ahead of someone else than following behind him.

      It's cute that you can simplify the problem down to you and one other car and pretend that the 'solution' holds for all other problems in the class.

      People will hack the AI because it exists. Owners will do so because it will make their car cooler. Others will do it because it is a challenge and they can get their leet haxor creds by causing damage.

      And that would pretty much settle the question of where to start looking to 'apportion blame' in the event of an accident.

      (on the other hand I make no opinion on whether people should be allowed to tinker with the programming or firmware of their cars (it'll take all night...))

    4. Re:It won't be safer for long by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      It's cute that you can simplify the problem down to you

      Whoosh.

      And that would pretty much settle the question of where to start looking to 'apportion blame' in the event of an accident.

      Oh, no! AV aren't GOING to have accidents. What blame is there to "apportion" (not sure why you used scare quotes on that) if there is no accident?

  13. Re:dealer only service with oil changes each 3000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    electric vehicles will go mainstream long before self driving cars do.

    besides, self driving cars will be a *service* not something mere mortals can buy. these companies, both legacy and new, are chomping at the bit to get a cut per-mile|km|ride|passenger out of *every* trip *everybody* takes, anywhere and everywhere they go. no fucking way would they let people get around that by 'allowing' private ownership of 'their' vehicles...

    and *THIS* administration? if self driving cars were just a little closer to actually being ready for mainstream, these fuckers would outlaw private ownership altogether, then cash those big 'contribution' checks received from the autonomous car companies.

  14. Re:dealer only service with oil changes each 3000 by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    dealer only service with oil changes each 3000 miles will drive profits up.

    So far most SDCs are electrics. There is no oil to change.

  15. centralizing failure modes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It might be that a properly working self driving car is magnitudes safer than a human driven car.

    Still, this centralizes certain failure modes. When $BLACKHAT finds a remote exploit for all models from a certain manufacture, and can hack them all at once and cause 50000 fatalities or severe injuries in a single morning, maybe that also should be considered as a risk factor. Any sufficiently complex automated system is going to have security flaws, and the more network connectivity these vehicles have, the more chances there will be for remote exploits of security critical systems.

    Well, I don't think there is any question about it. It can only be attributable to human error. This sort of thing has cropped up before, and it has always been due to human error. - HAL9000

  16. Re:dealer only service with oil changes each 3000 by queazocotal · · Score: 1

    Damn synths.

  17. The odds favor people by tsstahl · · Score: 1

    When all cars are automated, all crashes will be 100% computer error.

    Seems like people still have the statistical edge.

    What is it Samuel Clemens never said about statistics?

  18. Congress doing something right? by GerryGilmore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Damn! Will wonders never cease? Look, all of you self-driving car Luddites can just stay the hell away from them. For the rest of us, though, it makes PERFECT sense to have National standards for these cars in the same way that we currently have National standards for all current vehicles. Otherwise, you'd have an amalgam of incompatible state-based standards that would severely hinder development and deployment. (California's stricter emissions standards being the only exception I'm aware of.) What's wrong with that?

    1. Re:Congress doing something right? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but imagine the economic consequences when the states finally do get their shit together.

    2. Re:Congress doing something right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's BS. This is just Republicans endangering the public because they hate us. They love tech more than they love people.

    3. Re:Congress doing something right? by cdwiegand · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nice try, but already several states have emissions standards, and had the Feds used their unconstitutional "right" to pass a law only permitting Federal jurisdiction over emission standards, CA's rules (which like 10 other states follow) would NEVER have seen the light of day. And those standards have helped push electric vehicles, even self-driving cars (which arguably would not exist if alternative fuel cars wasn't as big of a market as it is - it's sparked innovation in a previously dead market).

      In the end, the Feds don't really have authority to do this, if the States would finally stand up and remind the federal government of their rights under the 10th amendment. Great point: I may not be a leftie or rightie (I'm actually centrist), but how would you feel if the Feds also demanded concealed carry reciprocity nation-wide? Or blocked LGBT marriage nation-wide? Most liberals squirm, at best, at the thought, yet ITS THE SAME IDEA - the feds taking away the right for a State to determine its own laws entirely within that state. It's only when something is commerce cross-state boundaries that the feds should be doing anything like this, and several states (esp. out west) are larger than many European countries, so I have a hard time believing they are having a hard time doing business in California (practically its own country already).

      --
      . Define sqrt(x) as something really evil like (x / rand()), and bury it deep. Watch your coworkers go nuts.
  19. Re:dealer only service with oil changes each 3000 by bobbied · · Score: 1

    electric vehicles will go mainstream long before self driving cars do.

    Wow! That long? You know EV's are NOT going to be mainstream until fossil fuels become too expensive to use and THAT's not happening in my lifetime. All Hail Hydraulic FRACKING!

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  20. Re:Stop Congress! by bobbied · · Score: 1

    Whoa! STOP Congress!

    FIFY

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  21. Re:dealer only service with oil changes each 3000 by stevelinton · · Score: 1

    What are you guys driving?
    It's 20000 miles between oil changes on my current car. And the car tells me when that's coming up!

  22. Re:dealer only service with oil changes each 3000 by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    Oil is a lubricant, not a fuel.

    Yes, Virginia, even electrics need lubricated.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  23. and go the under posted speed limit? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    and go the under posted speed limit?

    trying to 55 when others are doing 70-80+ is unsafe. Yet this what I-294 is out of side of peek times day to day.

  24. Re:dealer only service with oil changes each 3000 by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    No more oil changes with electric motors.

  25. Bad human decision making vs. AI Bugs by Scroatzilla · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm always curious when self-driving discussions appear. I'm "somewhat" informed on this topic, and am relatively neutral; but, I can't help but believe that tech folks are a bit too optimistic about the benefits of "eliminating human error." For example, I see in these types of discussions the example of debris on the road. Theoretically, most human drivers have the ability to see such debris and determine a course of action, and most of the time they choose correctly and avoid disaster.

    On the other hand, it would only take a single bug in an AI "debris subroutine" running in a whole bunch of self-driving cars to choose the wrong course of action 100% of the time. Such a bug would *probably* only be identified after enough failures were accurately recorded to piece together a pattern that could point to it (i.e., an incomplete test plan didn't catch it, a code review didn't catch it, differences between virtual test worlds vs. the real world hid the defect, etc.).

    I guess if someone could convince me that it is possible to write 100% bug-free code, I would feel better about this. However, what I perceive as the somewhat naive optimism of technical folks is somewhat terrifying in this context.

    1. Re:Bad human decision making vs. AI Bugs by Kjella · · Score: 2

      On the other hand, it would only take a single bug in an AI "debris subroutine" running in a whole bunch of self-driving cars to choose the wrong course of action 100% of the time. Such a bug would *probably* only be identified after enough failures were accurately recorded to piece together a pattern that could point to it

      What makes you say that? I would expect any SDC accident or near-accident where the car is potentially at fault to be given a thorough hearing, FAA style. I expect the "black box" in SDCs to give you all the raw sensor data from the last 30 seconds which will be put into simulators and ran not just on what did happen but a ton of variations to see what could happen. And for any change in the programming to be ran through a bunch of regression tests to check that you don't have any unexpected behavior changes or side effects.

      Humans make individual errors and there's only so much point in studying them, like you say SDCs should have predictable behavior in that they all work the same and should react in exactly the same way to exactly the same input. So you pounce on the first instance that it might have a problem and fix it, also updating all other cars on the road who haven't ran into that oddball combination of circumstances that caused a problem before there's ever a second accident. Not that you'll ever have 100% coverage or that there won't be bad patches, but I see this as inherently much better.

      Every year there's a new age cohort of drivers on the road with zero experience and they make newbie mistakes, so was I once. And even with experience we're not 100% concentrated on driving like a race driver, we have small lapses because we're distracted, tired, emotionally unbalanced and so on. I don't expect perfection from a SDC, but computers tend to have exceptional consistency. Of course there's too many variables for every day to be exactly the same, but at least the car will drive the same way, every time.

      If you break it down to "micro-situations" maybe there aren't that many different algorithms, because you only have to identify the situation sufficiently to reach a conclusion. If it's a drunk man or person in wheelchair or child or pet or wild animal in the road all amounts to animate object in road, stop. Also the rules for passing through an intersection are pretty universal, you have to identify the specifics of traffic lights and cars and pedestrians and whatnot, but I expect that to be one "thing" that's tweaked and refined to work in 99.9% of intersections 99.9% of the time. And the reminder it'll just be a stopped idiot.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  26. Re:dealer only service with oil changes each 3000 by tomhath · · Score: 1

    No Virginia. There is no motor oil in an electric motor. Maybe some grease in sealed bearings, but motor oil in an internal combustion engine needs to be changed because it gets contaminated with byproducts of combustion.

  27. Re:When folk start dying in accident caused by ... by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

    The problem with the modern world is that most people form their beliefs from the experience of watching things happen in movies, instead of the experience of reality.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank
  28. civil case can be stoped by eula's and nda's not by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    civil case can be stopped by eula's and nda's not so much in an criminal prosecution.

  29. Re:civil case can be stoped by eula's and nda's no by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    If a self-driving car crashes into me, it really doesn't matter if the owner of the SDC has agreed to a EULA, as long as I haven't..

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  30. Re:dealer only service with oil changes each 3000 by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    No Virginia. There is no motor oil in an electric motor. Maybe some grease in sealed bearings, but motor oil in an internal combustion engine needs to be changed because it gets contaminated with byproducts of friction.

    FTFY. In a properly sealed ICE, you shouldn't be getting significant amounts of combustion contaminates in your oil galley.

    FWIW, I never said "motor oil," I specifically said "lubricant."

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese