Slashdot Mirror
California May Soon Allow Passengers In Driverless Cars (reuters.com)
According to Reuters, California's public utility regulator on Friday signaled it would allow passengers to ride in self-driving cars without a backup driver in the vehicle. It is a big step forward for autonomous car developers, especially as the industry faces heightened scrutiny over safety concerns. From the report: The California Public Utilities Commission, the body that regulates utilities including transportation companies such as ride-hailing apps, issued a proposal that could clear the way for companies such as Alphabet's Waymo and General Motors to give members of the public a ride in a self-driving car without any backup driver present, which has been the practice of most companies so far. The California Department of Motor Vehicles had already issued rules allowing for autonomous vehicle testing without drivers, which took effect this week. The commission said its proposed rules complement the existing DMV rules but provide additional protections for passengers. The proposal, which is set to be voted on at the commission's meeting next month, would clear the way for autonomous vehicle companies to do more testing and get the public more closely acquainted with driverless cars in a state that has closely regulated the industry. It also comes as regulators across the country are taking a harder look at self-driving cars in the aftermath of a crash in Arizona that killed a pedestrian.
Completely fucking crazy? How can you do this after what just happened? What is wrong with these animals?
Doesn't have to go through a driving test at a randomly assigned DMV to prove it is at least as competent as a teenaged driver at navigating traffic, residential streets, and vocal instructions from a human?
When they can do that I will consider them acceptable to be driving on the same streets as me. In the meantime I will take the kid in the ricer zigzagging between cars and generally acting stupid. At least there I know there is some primal instinct not to die baked into it. These souless machines are just programmed to drive. (And yes I realize the irony of this given some of the crazies with licenses, but it is also true!)
Proof that a big enough check will influence regulation in spite of what recently happened.
Completely fucking crazy? How can you do this after what just happened? What is wrong with these animals?
Logic and rationality, apparently.
They note an enormous increase in safety when cars are autonomous, want to be on the forefront of a developing technology that has benefits to society, and aren't swayed by the daily panic dished out in the media.
Or in other words, they take a measured, considered approach instead of running around panicky with quick fixes.
Seriously? Tha's lunacy. This technology is nowhere near ready for protecting the lives of passengers.
The "I hope it don't crash" approach to autonomous cars is really fucked up. Software is killing people just trying to get from A to B and the people in charge don't give a shit.
It's a (brave) new world.
Seem to sensationalize the recent pedestrian death and hysterically claim that autonomous cars cannot be safe.
Thing is, that pedestrian in Arizona was crossing in the dark and was not visible until too late. Why would a pedestrian cross in front of a car that they can see (because it has headlights)? How many pedestrians get hit by human-driven cars?
As for the tech - I expect it will increase road safety, provide new levels of autonomy to the elderly/disabled and allow people to do other things while being transported from place to place. These are all positives.
After the fatalities that just happened with Uber and Tesla's malfunctioning autopilots, putting passengers in self-driving cars this soon is just crazy. The tech needs to go through far more tests before that should be allowed.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Looks like you've bought into the hype.
We can fully be "on the forefront of a developing technology" and not buy into hype and bullshit...both can exist simultaneously.
The tech isn't ready and won't be for awhile...companies are scrambling to be the first on the road and they really don't care about anything else.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Is there any testing and certification done for those cars or do they trust the companies to handle that by themselves?
Passenger-less cars! Just cars driving around all day and night. Like now only nobody in them.
"...It is a big step forward for autonomous car developers, especially as the industry faces heightened scrutiny over safety concerns."
Scrutiny? Don't assume for one fucking second this change has fuck-all with validating how safe driverless cars are, especially with no backup driver. This is Greed N. Corruption pushing forward with legislation that best supports maximizing profits at any cost.
Automated cars are baking VERY STUPID MISTAKES still. Apparently life isn't important enough to just have the stupid mistakes fixed before we ante up human lives. Nice to know our governments care about us.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
You know what? Uber is certainly a steaming pile of turd of a company, but I don't even blame them. We all know companies will do anything to make profit, especially a company like Uber. The problem is no one seems to care what these companies do. Everyone rolls there eyes and says, "Oh there goes Uber again" to a laugh track like on an 80's sitcom. I fault the government for not establishing quantifiable and measurable standards to *ensure* a vehicle is safe enough just to get through the testing it needs to do without killing anyone.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
ALL of the companies that want to roll out autonomous cars as a service are "steaming turds." They'll all be the same -- trips in a database, tied to an identity and bank card number for life. They may think they're doing good by saving lives through safer cars. In reality, they'll be destroying people's lives by robbing their privacy if their product becomes mandatory.
If consenting passengers want to or put their lives in the handsof down technology why shouldn't they be allowed to? My concern is for everyone else out in the general population who has become test subjects without any say in the matter.
It seems Tesla has a hidden NASCAR mode where it abruptly only turns left into things like highway barricades.
I agree. It's going to be terrible for freedom. Right now if I want to go to a museum, I pay the admission of the museum. Down the road, you may need to pay a car company to go to the part of the city with the museum and then pay for the museum. Then they know you're at the museum so you get pelted with 'personal' ads while you are there AND in the car.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
This is very shrewd on the part of California regulators. California is running out of water, housing, air, and just about everything else, because there are just too many friggin' two-leggers all over. This new thing is part of the important Population Reduction Program, sometimes just called PRP.
California just discovered another source of revenue.
Have gnu, will travel.
The "safety driver" appeared distracted (texting and not looking at the road). And the pedestrian also wasn't looking where she was going. On top of that, the car didn't detect the pedestrian. Three strikes.
Remember that side gig you took on to try to make ends meet? IE pay off that onerous student loan, or put a dent in the wife's cancer treatment bills, or buy the kids clothes for school?
It's going away.
The media should stop saying that this was a death caused by self-driving cars.
And yet it was. You see fundamentally the problem here is that the race to self-driving technology is one that involves keeping your trade secrets and technology close locked away for yourself. Uber may have owned the car that killed a person, but the fact that someone else's technology locked behind patents and IP could have prevented the death is THE problem with self driving cars.
At least Volvo had the decency to patent the seatbelt for the express purpose of opening it up to everyone and preventing any single company from owning life saving technology. That history of motorvehcile safety seems to be lost in this pissing contest.
Where's the NTSB?
What are the penalties for any failures?
* $100K for a scratch (vehicle or person) + 6 months down-time
* $1M for a law violation + 1 yr down-time
* $1M per person for any broken bones $10M/ea for serious injuries and 5 yrs down-time.
There need to be real penalties for any failures to hold the companies accountable. The down-time mandate will cost some companies more than the fines.
Call me old fashioned (and it wouldn't be the first time) but I prefer to be carless, thank you.
"No selfdriving car! You should take the 401 to Longshore Blvd!"
Self driving cars have an abundance of caution, and are generally going slower than normal traffic. The people INSIDE a self driving car are plenty safe.
I maintain the ones outside are as well, as self-driving cars are already safer by far than the average driver. However I can seer why some people might still not understand that... not the case for the safety of passengers, which are obviously safe.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The only safe autonomous car is a parked autonomous car.
Sorry, couldn't resist a trolling.
I've never really understood the notion that being "pelted with ads" was a major problem. Possibly because I'm quite capable of tuning ads out, and don't necessarily feel an incredible urge to buy something (or vote for someone) based on any ads I might pay attention to.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I never understood, turds, like you!
My partner is from California and friends have already sent her footage of them sitting in the driver seat of a self driving vehicle which took someone home.
I believe it was an uber and I think they needed to sign up in order to do this, but it's definitely occurring. The person who was in the driver seat is a simple friend of my girl, not uber staff or any kind of technician, trainer, vehicle monitor, just a regular passenger. This was about 3 or 4 weeks ago.
When will they allow drivers in passengerless cars?
True, but what's stopping another company to rush another poorly developed prototype onto public roads? Even more, how do you differentiate between a poorly developed prototype and a working production-grade system? Where do you draw the line?
The Arizona crash should be a call for authorities to create metrics of maturity for a self driving car program. They can be millions of miles driven on urban roads, number of incidents, or time between safety-related disconnects of the system. Build upon what Waymo and Cruise has discovered. Maybe Waymo doesn't need them anymore, its systems are mature enough, but other wannabe companies should pass the same gates.
What hasn't been identified but will affect you is not "ads" but the pricing mechanisms. All this data will allow companies to price trips not based on cost but based on ability to pay, the ability to manipulate you, and various other factors.
In the far future you may have to pay more because you are NOT susceptible to ads and now the ad community can track that. The car company can't sell you the taco bell on the way to the museum and so your fare needs to be higher to make up for that. It will be hard for small payers to offer competition in this space like they can now.
..the UTTER HORROR, of haivng the vehicle you're a 'passenger' in, as it mows down a pedestrian, and you have no way whatsoever to MAKE IT STOP.
DO NOT WANT!!!
The media should stop saying that this was a death caused by self-driving cars.
You're CLEARLY and OBJECTIVELY wrong, and I'm sick and fucking tired of you 'autonomous car' fanbois turning a blind eye to shitty 'technology' that will NEVER be up to the task. How many have to DIE HORRIBLY before you get your head out of the sand? Self-driving cars MUST HAVE human-level AI, be self-aware, because otherwise they can't be 'aware' of human beings in any meaningful way; why can't you see that!? 'Pseudo-intelligence' will NEVER be any good at this human-level activity. EVER.
"California Police Ticket Autonomous Car, Containing No Passengers, No Driver, No Monitor, No People, No Pets, No Groceries, and Having No Reason To Be On the Road. Also It Was In the Priority Lane And the Left Turn Signal Was Blinking For At Least 50 Miles."
Yes, that will be the /. title, because why not?
I've driven in CA, it doesn't seem like anyone's behind the wheel anyways...
In the UK we have the highway code. It'd serve as a good test to test the cars response to every bit of the highway code, it certainly wouldn't be a short test and it'd need to have a detailed test track and multiple participants, but I don't think anything less would suffice.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.