In theory, Hillary has already committed an act which if convicted for would disqualify her for any future public office... now actually prosecuting her for that is a separate and rather unlikely matter.
The quoted law would probably be found not applicable for public, IE elected, office by reason of unconstitutionality. Remember, term limits hasn't been successful outside of the amendment with the POTUS.
The intent is that you can't just DQ your opponents from public office with targeted laws, but the practical effect is that as long as you're not actually in prison, you can take office no matter your criminal record.
I can see automated cars getting abused rather badly. Trash, bodily fluids, etc.
I can see that coming to a screeching halt when the owners of the cars present the video footage of the car being trashed by the renter in court - civil(cleaning costs) and criminal(vandalism) as well as blackballing them.
You get a dirty car, you complain and they send a new one, then charge the last client for the cleaning.
Because it's cheaper to not have one, and probably also safer(on average). One of the accidents suffered by Google's self-driving vehicles was because the operator took it out of automatic and overrode it's braking in order to rear end a car.
Another reason would be - consider who's probably going to drive these first. People with convictions for things like DUI, reckless and negligent driving, etc... IE people we don't WANT to have a manual driving option. On the other hand - it'd much harder to get you for DUI in a vehicle where the extent of your control is telling it your destination and 'stop safely!'
Are they also assuming that when cars become autonomous, that we will no longer own them, but just call for one when we need one?BR? I am not in favor of a world where i can't own a car, and where I can't take control of a car in an emergency.
Probably figures that private ownership would decline, but not disappear. In the summertime here I take my motorcycle most of the time, my truck sees something like 2 trips every 3 weeks. Take somebody who, rather than motorcycling, takes the bus 5 days a week, but has a car for grocery runs and such on the weekend. That person can ditch the car and save ~$2k/year in expenses before driving an inch, and call one up as necessary.
So relax, you can still own your own car, it's just that fewer would chose to do so because renting one just became so much cheaper and easier.
They'd likely self-insure for the most part. And no, I figure that insurance prices wouldn't go up.
I pay about $2/day for full coverage insurance. Looks like the average is $1-2k. Let's say that the average is $1.2k/year for liability. Now let's figure that self driving cars, by the time they're released commercially, are an OOM safer than the average driver, and that they win some concessions from congress shielding them from lawsuits. That would drop the price to $120/year, $10/month.
Figure that they charge the full amount up front and escrow it at 6%, they 'only' need to charge ~$1200 up front to cover the expected liability costs for the next 10-15 years. If you want to be paranoid, $1500 at 5% gives a larger safety margin.
If the car is still driving after 10 years, there's a good possibility of demanding that the car be serviced/refurbished. You update the autodrive software and components, and charge enough money to restore the car's portion of the liability fund. Or kick the liability over to the owner, so they now have to pay $10/month to the insurance company to cover the auto-drive component.
Note: This is liability only, 'full coverage' would be a bit more.
Security issues up the wazoo need to be addressed, but what if, as part of that, it has the ability to request a remove driver assist? IE the creator of the automatic system employs a number of professional drivers who, when the car requests assistance, reviews the available information and provides the necessary assistance. Said session is recorded to go to the programmers to (hopefully) add that situation to the database of programmed responses.
If you have a stroke or lose your peripheral vision perhaps you shouldn't be driving at all.
He mentioned that with: "but the real promise of automated vehicles is that it will allow people that cannot (or should not, a much large category) drive 'manually' have access to individual transportation."
Right now, if you suffer from a condition that renders you unable to drive, it can be a massive expense and inconvenience to you. Suddenly you're dependent upon family to drive you everywhere, or lacking that public transportation(and it's limitations) or expensive taxies.
We also have the problem of the damage new drivers tend to cause during the learning experiences, and some never seem to learn. Somebody with a tendency to tap bumpers might find 'park assist' handy.
Personally, I like the idea of my vehicle dropping me off at the door of wherever I'm going, then going off and parking, then picking me up at the door, especially when I'm loaded down with groceries.
He's also a 'lame duck' president. He doesn't have to worry about political office anytime in the future. He doesn't really have to build any future bridges, etc...
Nope. You can legally be disbarred from being able to vote, and if you manage to win the presidency you can take office. Consider that a number of Governors and Mayors have been felons from in-office corruption convictions and still won re-election!
Requirements to be President are laid out in the constitution. As such, additional requirements are very likely to be considered unconstitutional unless placed into an amendment, like the 2 term rule. 1. Native-born US citizens (being here when the country was formed is obviously, no longer relevant). 2. At least 35 years old. 3. Resident of the Country for at least 14 years.
Where it becomes tricky is impeachment. For a crime that an individual has been duly tried for, known before the election, it would be tough to impeach the individual. So if you were busted for DUI and underage drinking(felony level somewhere) when you were 18 and you're now 43(youngest president, Kennedy), the DUI is all done with, so while it might come up in the election as a point against you, if you're still elected they can't really impeach you for it.
If you commit crimes while IN office, you could be impeached. It's been tried a few times. Mostly failed.
If the fact that you committed crimes before being elected, that are discovered after you're elected, you can be impeached. If they can get the votes(it'll be political, unless it's something like murder, and even then...).
As such, for a politician, it's actually best to have any criminal allegations settled BEFORE you take office.
Seriously, why should automated cars be operating in places where kids on bikes and skateboards and pets exist?
Because reaction times measured in the milliseconds are handy at avoiding hitting them when they dart into the road, much better than people with reactions upwards of a full second?
Ethernet contention rules. Wait a random time, if none of the others are going, proceed. If another car starts going before, wait, if at the same time, both stop and wait a random time again.
THIS is why we need dash cams. Good ones, looking fore and aft with a wide enough view to deal with stuff like the cyclists and biker's lane splitting shenanigans.
Well, it's something that tends to be integrated into self-driving cars. Google has very good views of all the accidents it's cars have been in.
Since I don't reply to AC's: 1. Can't do much about cyclists other than to build your mirror a little more sturdy. On the other hand. Self driving car! It wouldn't have a mirror there, because it uses a camera & other systems, and isn't stuck in the 'driver' seat. 2. Given self-driving car reflexes, is going to result in them eating a lot of pavement for no result. Or they cut it so close that the car still runs them over, causing serious injury, but the company insuring the car also makes the drive system, and points out they have video of them diving into traffic. 3. Somebody following you? Call the police with your cell phone or use the vehicle communication button(on-star for some brands). 4. They claim, you show the black box footage, they end up paying, and maybe spending some time in jail for lying before the court. 5. Seriously? Do you know how ridiculously dangerous getting into a 'deliberate' accident on a motorcycle is, even if you're wearing full gear? Again, self-driving car, it avoids the accident, the moocher has to find his insurance lotto elsewhere. If he does manage to make you hit him, black box will show it and he gets to pay his own medical bills. 6. Toll booths - EZPass anybody?
Part of the problem is that not even the companies producing the auto-drive systems think that they're ready for general release. So there's still a lot of development to be done.
We are seeing some trickle down in this - cars that will automatically apply the brake to prevent hitting something(as fast), lane following, etc...
UK's rules are no real problem for the developing companies because they're still at the point that the rules don't really limit them. Heck, the developing companies probably helped write the rules!
A self-driving car should *never* need a user to take over. The car should come to an immediate stop, like elevator brakes
I think I'd prefer that the car come to a stop outside of the traffic lane, but safely. But yes, if something has failed, I want a tow truck to be a legitimate next step, not the user taking over in what's probably a chaotic situation.
Especially once they've been operating driverless cars enough that the users are no longer skilled drivers.
No, I take each episode on their presented evidence. Occasionally I have issue with some facet of their testing procedures, but I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Sure, they get 'a lot' of stuff wrong. So doesn't 'a lot' of accepted peer reviewed scientific papers. At least the mythbusters blow stuff up in interesting ways.
A variation of the speech from Inherit the Wind: "You sir, will be allowed your self-driving car, but before you leave town for good, it will drive you to the bank to make sure your financial affairs are in order."
In the case of the dust bowl, you wanted them gone - keeping them around due to debts would just result in more debts. Until you have to do bankruptcy paperwork, etc... You have to know when to cut your losses.
As an AC put it, these rules are 'obviously intended to allow the companies to put the cars onto the roads for beta testing, not for actual general sale'.
Once companies pile on enough miles to show that the engineers/professional drivers aren't necessary, the systems can see more general release.
Personally, at least in the USA I see shoving all the DUI and other people with revoked licenses into a self-driving car rather than messing with breath-testing interlocks once they reach a certain point.
After that, you'll see the rich people taking them for the convenience, the kids of rich/wealthy parents getting them for the safety, and it'll trickle on down, especially with insurance breaks for such vehicles. Insurance at 1/3rd the price would pay for a good deal of auto-drive equipment, after all.
Once it becomes 'standard' for new 'drivers' to use self-driving cars, I predict 'all' cars will become self-driving much like how automatic transmissions took over for manuals in the USA, but more rapidly.
Exactly. Self cars need to be 100% self driving, or they're utterly useless.
I wouldn't go that far. What I would say is that it should be overwhelmingly capable of bringing the car to a safe halt in case of a failure. It doesn't need to be able to navigate a chaotic construction zone(IE where the machines are operating, delivering supplies, as opposed to navigating traffic diversions) or go 'offroading'. It simply needs to be able to get 99% of people from point A to point B safely.
I will agree that a sudden 'I can't handle this!' handoff to the driver of the vehicle would be a critical failure.
Pulling to the side of the road and beeping at the driver to indicate that it doesn't know how to proceed may be a procedural failure, but as long as it doesn't hit anything or cause damage to anything, including itself, it's not a critical failure.
If Google wants to have self-driving cars, they should be like taxi cabs, and they should have their own liability. This hybrid model is doomed to fail.
I wouldn't call it doomed, but with self-driving vehicles the Taxi model becomes a lot more economical. I still think that large numbers of people would want to own their own vehicle though. The owner buying damage/theft insurance while the manufacturer picks up liability is a very real possibility.
In this case, I think that 'everybody' would agree that the current UK regulations do not have self driving cars as available for public use. Killer #1 is the requirement for a more highly trained driver than for a regular non-automated vehicle.
This allows professional test drivers to get systems onto the public UK roads and start working out the specific idiosyncrasies of driving on UK roads. Nothing more.
As they say, you can tell how old a law is by how well it's written. Modern law is really lousy, and this includes England.
I figure that the 'high level knowledge' means that they have enough knowledge of the system in order to be able to tell when it's operating outside of specifications, thus knowing to take over. Indeed, that's why it says they must be practiced in taking over.
I find it helps to think of it like a medical trial of a new medicine with vast potential. First you have private trials (test track stuff). Then you have limited public trials (google's and other's cars), where the participants are heavily monitored and screened. Then the trials become more and more general release - the drug becomes prescription. Then, if the medicine is finally deemed safe enough, it becomes over the counter.
Despite the many hours put in by various companies on their cars, when you start increasing that by orders of magnitude and get rid of the professional drivers*, you're sure to encounter situations the companies never thought of.
The current restrictions aren't meant to be final restrictions. They're restrictions meant for the trial of a radical new component into a system where failure can and does cost lives on a regular basis. Yes, the new component is supposed to reduce the number of lives cost, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have to be validated.
*Who, in Google's case, already have a worse driving record. In one case putting the car into override only to drive it into having an accident by rear-ending a car the autopilot was slowing to avoid hitting.
Most cars can't make 500 miles between refuelings, and if you stop at a supercharger station you can very much be on the road for longer times than you spend recharging.
That's without a battery swap station, of which Tesla has demonstrated a model which can replace the battery faster than you can refuel a 500 mile ranged vehicle.
Slashdot Mirror
In theory, Hillary has already committed an act which if convicted for would disqualify her for any future public office... now actually prosecuting her for that is a separate and rather unlikely matter.
The quoted law would probably be found not applicable for public, IE elected, office by reason of unconstitutionality. Remember, term limits hasn't been successful outside of the amendment with the POTUS.
The intent is that you can't just DQ your opponents from public office with targeted laws, but the practical effect is that as long as you're not actually in prison, you can take office no matter your criminal record.
I can see automated cars getting abused rather badly. Trash, bodily fluids, etc.
I can see that coming to a screeching halt when the owners of the cars present the video footage of the car being trashed by the renter in court - civil(cleaning costs) and criminal(vandalism) as well as blackballing them.
You get a dirty car, you complain and they send a new one, then charge the last client for the cleaning.
Why wouldn't it have a steering column?
Because it's cheaper to not have one, and probably also safer(on average). One of the accidents suffered by Google's self-driving vehicles was because the operator took it out of automatic and overrode it's braking in order to rear end a car.
Another reason would be - consider who's probably going to drive these first. People with convictions for things like DUI, reckless and negligent driving, etc... IE people we don't WANT to have a manual driving option. On the other hand - it'd much harder to get you for DUI in a vehicle where the extent of your control is telling it your destination and 'stop safely!'
Are they also assuming that when cars become autonomous, that we will no longer own them, but just call for one when we need one?BR? I am not in favor of a world where i can't own a car, and where I can't take control of a car in an emergency.
Probably figures that private ownership would decline, but not disappear. In the summertime here I take my motorcycle most of the time, my truck sees something like 2 trips every 3 weeks. Take somebody who, rather than motorcycling, takes the bus 5 days a week, but has a car for grocery runs and such on the weekend. That person can ditch the car and save ~$2k/year in expenses before driving an inch, and call one up as necessary.
So relax, you can still own your own car, it's just that fewer would chose to do so because renting one just became so much cheaper and easier.
They'd likely self-insure for the most part. And no, I figure that insurance prices wouldn't go up.
I pay about $2/day for full coverage insurance. Looks like the average is $1-2k. Let's say that the average is $1.2k/year for liability. Now let's figure that self driving cars, by the time they're released commercially, are an OOM safer than the average driver, and that they win some concessions from congress shielding them from lawsuits. That would drop the price to $120/year, $10/month.
Figure that they charge the full amount up front and escrow it at 6%, they 'only' need to charge ~$1200 up front to cover the expected liability costs for the next 10-15 years. If you want to be paranoid, $1500 at 5% gives a larger safety margin.
If the car is still driving after 10 years, there's a good possibility of demanding that the car be serviced/refurbished. You update the autodrive software and components, and charge enough money to restore the car's portion of the liability fund. Or kick the liability over to the owner, so they now have to pay $10/month to the insurance company to cover the auto-drive component.
Note: This is liability only, 'full coverage' would be a bit more.
Security issues up the wazoo need to be addressed, but what if, as part of that, it has the ability to request a remove driver assist? IE the creator of the automatic system employs a number of professional drivers who, when the car requests assistance, reviews the available information and provides the necessary assistance. Said session is recorded to go to the programmers to (hopefully) add that situation to the database of programmed responses.
If you have a stroke or lose your peripheral vision perhaps you shouldn't be driving at all.
He mentioned that with: "but the real promise of automated vehicles is that it will allow people that cannot (or should not, a much large category) drive 'manually' have access to individual transportation."
Right now, if you suffer from a condition that renders you unable to drive, it can be a massive expense and inconvenience to you. Suddenly you're dependent upon family to drive you everywhere, or lacking that public transportation(and it's limitations) or expensive taxies.
We also have the problem of the damage new drivers tend to cause during the learning experiences, and some never seem to learn. Somebody with a tendency to tap bumpers might find 'park assist' handy.
Personally, I like the idea of my vehicle dropping me off at the door of wherever I'm going, then going off and parking, then picking me up at the door, especially when I'm loaded down with groceries.
He's also a 'lame duck' president. He doesn't have to worry about political office anytime in the future. He doesn't really have to build any future bridges, etc...
Nope. You can legally be disbarred from being able to vote, and if you manage to win the presidency you can take office. Consider that a number of Governors and Mayors have been felons from in-office corruption convictions and still won re-election!
Requirements to be President are laid out in the constitution. As such, additional requirements are very likely to be considered unconstitutional unless placed into an amendment, like the 2 term rule.
1. Native-born US citizens (being here when the country was formed is obviously, no longer relevant).
2. At least 35 years old.
3. Resident of the Country for at least 14 years.
Where it becomes tricky is impeachment. For a crime that an individual has been duly tried for, known before the election, it would be tough to impeach the individual. So if you were busted for DUI and underage drinking(felony level somewhere) when you were 18 and you're now 43(youngest president, Kennedy), the DUI is all done with, so while it might come up in the election as a point against you, if you're still elected they can't really impeach you for it.
If you commit crimes while IN office, you could be impeached. It's been tried a few times. Mostly failed.
If the fact that you committed crimes before being elected, that are discovered after you're elected, you can be impeached. If they can get the votes(it'll be political, unless it's something like murder, and even then...).
As such, for a politician, it's actually best to have any criminal allegations settled BEFORE you take office.
Seriously, why should automated cars be operating in places where kids on bikes and skateboards and pets exist?
Because reaction times measured in the milliseconds are handy at avoiding hitting them when they dart into the road, much better than people with reactions upwards of a full second?
Ethernet contention rules. Wait a random time, if none of the others are going, proceed. If another car starts going before, wait, if at the same time, both stop and wait a random time again.
THIS is why we need dash cams. Good ones, looking fore and aft with a wide enough view to deal with stuff like the cyclists and biker's lane splitting shenanigans.
Well, it's something that tends to be integrated into self-driving cars. Google has very good views of all the accidents it's cars have been in.
Since I don't reply to AC's:
1. Can't do much about cyclists other than to build your mirror a little more sturdy. On the other hand. Self driving car! It wouldn't have a mirror there, because it uses a camera & other systems, and isn't stuck in the 'driver' seat.
2. Given self-driving car reflexes, is going to result in them eating a lot of pavement for no result. Or they cut it so close that the car still runs them over, causing serious injury, but the company insuring the car also makes the drive system, and points out they have video of them diving into traffic.
3. Somebody following you? Call the police with your cell phone or use the vehicle communication button(on-star for some brands).
4. They claim, you show the black box footage, they end up paying, and maybe spending some time in jail for lying before the court.
5. Seriously? Do you know how ridiculously dangerous getting into a 'deliberate' accident on a motorcycle is, even if you're wearing full gear? Again, self-driving car, it avoids the accident, the moocher has to find his insurance lotto elsewhere. If he does manage to make you hit him, black box will show it and he gets to pay his own medical bills.
6. Toll booths - EZPass anybody?
Part of the problem is that not even the companies producing the auto-drive systems think that they're ready for general release. So there's still a lot of development to be done.
We are seeing some trickle down in this - cars that will automatically apply the brake to prevent hitting something(as fast), lane following, etc...
UK's rules are no real problem for the developing companies because they're still at the point that the rules don't really limit them. Heck, the developing companies probably helped write the rules!
Lloyd's of London will insure anything. You might just not like the premiums.
In this case, self insurance makes sense.
A self-driving car should *never* need a user to take over. The car should come to an immediate stop, like elevator brakes
I think I'd prefer that the car come to a stop outside of the traffic lane, but safely. But yes, if something has failed, I want a tow truck to be a legitimate next step, not the user taking over in what's probably a chaotic situation.
Especially once they've been operating driverless cars enough that the users are no longer skilled drivers.
No, I take each episode on their presented evidence. Occasionally I have issue with some facet of their testing procedures, but I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Sure, they get 'a lot' of stuff wrong. So doesn't 'a lot' of accepted peer reviewed scientific papers. At least the mythbusters blow stuff up in interesting ways.
Hey, life is short and I'm only on this planet for a short time.
Perhaps, but I plan to be around for a while longer, not to mention my kids and their kids.
You may want to go out 'in a blaze of glory', but I want to leave something for the next generation.
A variation of the speech from Inherit the Wind: "You sir, will be allowed your self-driving car, but before you leave town for good, it will drive you to the bank to make sure your financial affairs are in order."
In the case of the dust bowl, you wanted them gone - keeping them around due to debts would just result in more debts. Until you have to do bankruptcy paperwork, etc... You have to know when to cut your losses.
As an AC put it, these rules are 'obviously intended to allow the companies to put the cars onto the roads for beta testing, not for actual general sale'.
Once companies pile on enough miles to show that the engineers/professional drivers aren't necessary, the systems can see more general release.
Personally, at least in the USA I see shoving all the DUI and other people with revoked licenses into a self-driving car rather than messing with breath-testing interlocks once they reach a certain point.
After that, you'll see the rich people taking them for the convenience, the kids of rich/wealthy parents getting them for the safety, and it'll trickle on down, especially with insurance breaks for such vehicles. Insurance at 1/3rd the price would pay for a good deal of auto-drive equipment, after all.
Once it becomes 'standard' for new 'drivers' to use self-driving cars, I predict 'all' cars will become self-driving much like how automatic transmissions took over for manuals in the USA, but more rapidly.
Exactly. Self cars need to be 100% self driving, or they're utterly useless.
I wouldn't go that far. What I would say is that it should be overwhelmingly capable of bringing the car to a safe halt in case of a failure. It doesn't need to be able to navigate a chaotic construction zone(IE where the machines are operating, delivering supplies, as opposed to navigating traffic diversions) or go 'offroading'. It simply needs to be able to get 99% of people from point A to point B safely.
I will agree that a sudden 'I can't handle this!' handoff to the driver of the vehicle would be a critical failure.
Pulling to the side of the road and beeping at the driver to indicate that it doesn't know how to proceed may be a procedural failure, but as long as it doesn't hit anything or cause damage to anything, including itself, it's not a critical failure.
If Google wants to have self-driving cars, they should be like taxi cabs, and they should have their own liability. This hybrid model is doomed to fail.
I wouldn't call it doomed, but with self-driving vehicles the Taxi model becomes a lot more economical. I still think that large numbers of people would want to own their own vehicle though. The owner buying damage/theft insurance while the manufacturer picks up liability is a very real possibility.
In this case, I think that 'everybody' would agree that the current UK regulations do not have self driving cars as available for public use. Killer #1 is the requirement for a more highly trained driver than for a regular non-automated vehicle.
This allows professional test drivers to get systems onto the public UK roads and start working out the specific idiosyncrasies of driving on UK roads. Nothing more.
As they say, you can tell how old a law is by how well it's written. Modern law is really lousy, and this includes England.
I figure that the 'high level knowledge' means that they have enough knowledge of the system in order to be able to tell when it's operating outside of specifications, thus knowing to take over. Indeed, that's why it says they must be practiced in taking over.
I find it helps to think of it like a medical trial of a new medicine with vast potential.
First you have private trials (test track stuff).
Then you have limited public trials (google's and other's cars), where the participants are heavily monitored and screened.
Then the trials become more and more general release - the drug becomes prescription.
Then, if the medicine is finally deemed safe enough, it becomes over the counter.
Despite the many hours put in by various companies on their cars, when you start increasing that by orders of magnitude and get rid of the professional drivers*, you're sure to encounter situations the companies never thought of.
The current restrictions aren't meant to be final restrictions. They're restrictions meant for the trial of a radical new component into a system where failure can and does cost lives on a regular basis. Yes, the new component is supposed to reduce the number of lives cost, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have to be validated.
*Who, in Google's case, already have a worse driving record. In one case putting the car into override only to drive it into having an accident by rear-ending a car the autopilot was slowing to avoid hitting.
One can hope that it follows the same trend as the red flag laws - as the technology is validated the restrictions will drop one by one.
As is, I've already reached the point where every time I read about another car accident I think that self driving cars can't come fast enough.
Just the accident avoidance stuff alone...
100 kWh battery in a Tesla? Assuming you don't drive like a maniac, you should have ~300 miles, easy.
Most cars can't make 500 miles between refuelings, and if you stop at a supercharger station you can very much be on the road for longer times than you spend recharging.
That's without a battery swap station, of which Tesla has demonstrated a model which can replace the battery faster than you can refuel a 500 mile ranged vehicle.