9 ms·
It wasn't mentioned in the bloomberg article, but the 15 areas covered are: • Data Recording and Sharing • Privacy • System Safety • Vehicle Cybersecur
by owyn 10y ago
It wasn't mentioned in the bloomberg article, but the 15 areas covered are:
• Data Recording and Sharing
• Privacy
• System Safety
• Vehicle Cybersecurity
• Human Machine Interface
• Crashworthiness
• Consumer Education and Training
• Registration and Certi cation
• Post-Crash Behavior
• Federal, State and Local Laws
• Ethical Considerations
• Operational Design Domain (operating in rain, etc)
• Object and Event Detection and Response
• Fall Back (Minimal Risk Condition)
• Validation Methods
Not sure if they're specifically ordered, but it seems positive that Data recording and Privacy are up at the top.
- 2bitencryption 10y agoThis seems suspiciously like government getting something right... with regards to a quickly-evolving new technology market... has this ever happened before?
- danharaj 10y agoYes. There's been a decades-long smear campaign against public management of common infrastructure.
- CPLX 10y agoWell there was the whole Federal Government inventing the internet thing at one point.
- wwkeyboard 10y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V
- rayiner 10y agoCan you think of a concrete example where the government got it wrong?[1] For the sake of argument, the federal government in the last 50 years? Maybe the encryption export ban. Or the CDA, but that was quickly reversed and the part that's left (Section 230) was really instrumental in the rise of the modern web. [1] And I don't mean wrong as in "NSA spying" because you disagree with the policy. I mean like, "regulations mandated everyone use Beta tapes and laser disk even though they quickly became obsolete."
- ghurtado 10y ago> Can you think of a concrete example where the government got it wrong? Stem cell research.
- rayiner 10y agoI think 2bitencryption's point is more along the lines that the government regulates fields and that regulation quickly becomes unworkable because its a "quickly-evolving new technology market." For example, if the government mandated that all computers had to be Windows 9x-compatible that might have prevented the rise of the iPhone. The embryonic stem-cell research ban didn't have anything to do with the underlying science and technology--it was based on a moral objection to the practice of destroying embryos for research. If the government had, for example, mandated the use of some testing methodology that soon became obsolete, that might be more on point.
- ghurtado 10y agoAh, I see. Thanks for clarifying, I thought it was a broader question.
- harryh 10y agoSome HIPAA regulations that pre-date the rise of shared virtual servers in "the cloud" are quite outdated and cause quite a bit of trouble for no real benefit.
- 10y ago
- Spooky23 10y agoFrequently. Passenger air travel. The highway system. Many others.
- seanmcdirmid 10y agoThe FAA and NTSB have really worked well.
- vblord 10y agoInteresting "Federal, State and Local Laws". So what happens when the self driving car violates a law and the police office pulls it over. Who gets the ticket? If there is no steering wheel... can it even get pulled over?
- chipperyman573 10y agoIf I were to guess, once self-driving cars are widespread, cars won't be pulled over any more for driving-related issues (ie, cops won't radar any more). However, they will probably be required to have a kill switch that can pull it over for other reasons (ie, if the cops thought your car was the getaway vehicle from a bank robbery) This is of course once almost all cars are self-driving so it'll be interesting to see what happens in the midterm.
- acchow 10y ago> If I were to guess, once self-driving cars are widespread, cars won't be pulled over any more for driving-related issues There will still be black people in cars
- greedo 10y agoCops pull over cars for traffic infractions for three primary reasons. The first is for driving safety, the second is for revenue, and the third is because it leads them to arrests of idiot criminals who can't be bothered to fix their tail lights.
- sharemywin 10y agoNow if the could just come up with some "Data recording and Privacy" regulations for all electronic devices. So, Google and Facebook can stop creeping me out. They're like the creepy neighbors that always look at out the window to see what I'm doing.
- kelvin0 10y agoDo you need to use their services? Have been (mostly) Google and Facebook free for a long time, and I don't live under a rock. Maybe you should also try the "FB&G"-free diet too ...? (It's not for everyone :-)
- xkcd-sucks 10y agoThe problem is communicating with people that use those services
- ticklemyelmo 10y agoThe cynic in me immediately interpreted "Post-Crash Behavior" as the exact opposite priority from "Privacy".
- ChuckMcM 10y agoI was thinking it meant the car would not drive itself away and hide after a collision :-)
- eck 10y agoThat could actually be an interesting problem. It might sound like "in the event of a impact >Xg, stop, shut down, and wait for police/NTSB/etc to come investigate". But if, say, you hit a deer on a wilderness road in the winter, that behavior could lead to the passengers all dying of exposure. Do self-driving cars have a button labeled "fuck your rules and DRIVE"?
- macNchz 10y agoA self-driving car that refuses to move after a minor accident on a wilderness road sounds like a great opening scene for a horror movie.
- extropy 10y agoYes, unless it's level 5. Then you walk.
- jpindar 10y agoLikewise, in most discussions of self-driving cars, it is noted that they probably won't work well in the snow. Someone (presumably not from a snowy area) will then say that the car will pull over and wait, as you shouldn't be driving in a snowstorm anyway. They never say what's supposed to happen next, with the highways full of people whose cars have stranded them. Are they all supposed to call for cabs? But wait, cabs have been replaced by self-driving cars...
- 10y ago
- pif 10y agoThanks for listing them, I was curious indeed. By the way, in which area do the following requests fall: - Yielding to an emergency vehicle with sirens on. - Moving backwards to a safe and large enough spot when the route is too narrow to fit self-driving car and oncoming huge lorry (and there is no line marking the limit between road and ravine). - Upon instructions from authority, recognize that the highway is closed due to an accident and, no matter what the driving code says, you actually have to make a U-turn on the highway and follow the crowd. Alternatively, just take that route (yes, the one with the large no-entry sign at the beginning) or that narrow path in the wood (yes, it exists, even if Google Maps isn't aware of it). At the bare minimum, park yourself off the road and let the others move on. - Verify whether a queue is forming behind you. Listen to the honkers, they may be right. When you are an obstacle to the most part of traffic, moving to the side and letting others pass from time to time is sincerely appreciated.