4 ms·
I think I agree with Uber on this one. Self-driving functionality, at least for the time being, is a tool used by a human operator to achieve their objectives
by hlandau 10y ago
I think I agree with Uber on this one.
Self-driving functionality, at least for the time being, is a tool used by a human operator to achieve their objectives with regard to the vehicle. This is distinct from a vehicle with no driver, for which regulation is obviously necessary. It's no different from a pilot using autopilot. If someone wanted to make an unmanned passenger plane, there'd need to be huge regulatory changes (not saying it's necessarily a good idea), but pilots use autopilot all the time without great regulatory upheaval, because it's just a tool the pilot is using to fly the plane as they wish.
So long as a human operator is in control of, and responsible for, the vehicle, it shouldn't matter in particular what method they use to operate it.
- tadfisher 10y agoInteresting choice of example, considering the relative level of regulation between the aviation and automotive industries. The use of "autopilot" in aviation is not without controversy, and there are a number of schools of thought on the spectrum between "it saves lives" and "it dumbs down pilots and kills people". FWIW, the FAA at least requires a functioning autopilot (or "automatic altitude control system") when flying in RVSM airspace, or the altitude where most commercial jets fly, so regulation is on the side of automation here.