8 ms·

Trump administration re-evaluating self-driving car guidance

50 points by devy 10y ago

mcafeeryan92 10y ago
This is a really difficult situation, in that lowering regulatory overhead would mean getting automated solutions to the public faster, and even if they weren't optimally safe they'd likely be vastly better than human drivers and the sooner we could reap that benefit the better. However, there is a substantial long-term risk to the viability of self-driving cars if any high-profile accidents do happen, because outside of Silicon Valley people generally trust themselves more than technology. So on the other hand it might be better to continue the dangerous status quo for longer, until regulatory framework can assure safety, so as to make the rollout of autonomous cars actually result in adoption of autonomous cars.
- Dirlewanger 10y ago
  Even the most dug-in libertarian can't really argue against these kinds of regulations; automobiles affect everyone within their vicinity. Ideally, all automobile manufacturers should be politely told to shut the fuck up and deal with it, but the realist in me thinks Chao's pockets will be lined with their money quite soon.
  - liberte82 10y ago
    You'd be surprised. The problem with regulations is that they have done their job so well that a subset of people now believe they are not necessary and that the market will "take care of itself". See also: vaccines.
    - unityByFreedom 10y ago
      People can change their tune. Greenspan was chairman of the Fed for 20 years arguing for free market the whole time. It was his life's philosophy. Then he testified to Congress after the housing meltdown '08 and said he was wrong. The banks can't be trusted to regulate themselves via the market, and regulation is necessary. We will face a recession again. Trump will repeal Dodd Frank, banks will start making riskier loans and obscuring them in hidden investment products, and one day someone big enough will pull out, causing the whole house of cards to collapse. And, Republicans and Democrats will do another TARP because the alternative is World Depression II. That is, unless Trump seizes enough power to prevent TARP II.
      - liberte82 10y ago
        People can change their tune, but that's not what is happening in today's political climate. It's been less than ten years since the last financial crisis, and no one has forgotten that it was loose regulations that caused it. What we have happening today is something much more sinister - crises and bailouts are becoming part of the system itself. Socialized bailouts, privatized profits.
        unityByFreedom 10y ago
        Yeah. I suspect it's not new. We've gone back and forth between being red and blue, through recessions and wars. We need to remain vigilant, and also remember that history does have a way of repeating itself. Let's just hope this isn't a big bang type event, and more of a wake up call for everyone.
  - slang800 10y ago
    > Even the most dug-in libertarian can't really argue against these kinds of regulations Oh, I beg to differ. From a hard-core libertarian perspective, the state has no right to exist, let alone impose arbitrary regulations on business owners. People should be free to trade at will and guarantees on safety should be handled through a contract between the people who are trading. To impose regulations on trade would be an act of aggression. During vehicle operation, everyone using the road would need to agree on an acceptable level of risk, probably managed by the road owner, not a state. Even if the owner of a particular road refuses to do business with you, you would still be able to buy whatever vehicles you like and operate them on your own property.
    - nickbauman 10y ago
      Historically, to the degree that the state recedes from markets is to the same degree that markets get more volatile, smaller and less profitable.
      - slang800 10y ago
        That might be true, though I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that. But my point wasn't that regulation is inefficient - it's that libertarians can be quite a bit more extreme than the OP thinks.
        pharrington 10y ago
        >>That might be true, though I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that. Libertarian paradises aren't always theoretical. See early bitcoin, and the commonly cited Somalia. On the opposite end, known authoritarian-tightass state China currently has the most efficient capitalist economy the planet has yet seen.
        nickbauman 10y ago
        Bitcoin as an economy is essentially a hoax.
  - stale2002 10y ago
    Wrong. Self driving cars are already safer than humans. We need to put them on the road, in mass, NOW. Every year we wait is another million people dead, due to terrible human drivers.
    - unityByFreedom 10y ago
      That's a great idea if the tech were ready. Introduced prematurely, it could set the tech back due to public outcry. A few more autopilot deaths in the US in this political climate could really hurt the industry. Chao is looking for an excuse to pull permits.
      - stale2002 10y ago
        Maybe in big government California there would be outcry. But not in Arizona, or any other red state. Get the federal government out of regulating it, and let the states decide. Then, when red states save thousands of lives, the blue states will follow.
        unityByFreedom 10y ago
        > Then, when red states save thousands of lives, the blue states will follow. Haha or vice versa! Depends who proceeds in the right way. I don't believe there's definitively an answer as to whether Tesla (arguably red and anti-regulation, moving forward without much caution) or Google (blue, more cautious) will find more success. I personally think Google will, but even better than that, it's great that we have such a system that permits that level of competition.
- freehunter 10y ago
  I've recently been disappointed by the "Uber's car ran a red light!" stories I've been seeing. I know a lot of people hate Uber for various reasons and there's every reason to stay cautious about making sure self-driving cars are predictable and have the right sensors on-board, but imagine if we saw a headline on CNN every time a human-driven car ran a red light. There's no excuse for a self-driving car to run a red light, but human drivers do it millions of times every day and in most cases when we see it we just shake our heads and say "what is that fool thinking?!" But a self-driving car does it once and it's headline news for months.
  - marcell 10y ago
    Usually when a human runs a red light, they are aware that it's red. Typically the light is just turning red, and they think they can still make it. For Uber, their car was probably not aware that the light was red, which is more dangerous.
    - pyre 10y ago
      People often run red lights because they aren't paying attention too. It still doesn't make headlines on CNN.
      - saynay 10y ago
        A person running a red light is driving just one car at a time. A self-driving car's software is (potentially) driving many cars. I do not think "a self-driving car runs a red light" is analogous to "a person runs a red light". A closer analogy is to "a distinct class of people who run red lights". I do agree that the media response is overblown, however I do not think it is without some merit.
        benologist 10y ago
        "A person" discounts the millions of other persons individually doing it around the world - orders of magnitude more than driverless cars could possibly achieve this decade. Their combined effort, while not just running red lights, kills an estimated 1.25 million people a year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...
- pharrington 10y ago
  Exactly. AI-driven cars almost certainly are/will be safer than human-driven cars. We don't need them right now. Don't cut corners on safety.
- elmar 10y ago
  "Chao said she was "very concerned" about the potential impact of automated vehicles on employment. There are 3.5 million U.S. truck drivers alone and millions of others employed in driving-related occupations." that is really the hardest point, when you are trying to reduce unemployment like Trump is.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- user5994461 10y ago
  > This is a really difficult situation, in that lowering regulatory overhead would mean getting automated solutions to the public faster, Never lower regulations when life are on the line. There is a reason planes and cars don't crash every day, and it's because of these annoying regulations that force tests and QA. You'll never see a summer intern just come in and commits anything he wants and breaks everything. This shit doesn't happen in this line of business. Regulations is good. You don't want devs being involved in your car with zero regulations to back them.
Cursuviam 10y ago
Having read through the previous guidelines, I am not surprised at all at the actions taken. However, the changes taken will likely not change the situation much, as the policy had already been very deferential towards state regulation and self-regulation and really were mostly just guidelines.
astrodust 10y ago
With new taxes against electric vehicles and now this looks like Elon Musk's idea of cozying up to the tyrannical regime is paying big dividends! Good going, dude.
- rebootthesystem 10y ago
  I down-voted your comment because of the use of the term "tyrannical". I am not a Trump supporter but, in general terms (not attacking you), this language and attitude isn't productive at all. It is far better to be part of the solution than to constantly bitch about what one doesn't like. Not to deviate from the subject of this thread, look at what Elon is doing. I doubt he is in alignment with Trump yet he, and a whole lot of very smart people, recognize that it is far more constructive to participate in finding solutions and providing guidance than engaging in doing nothing more than bitching. Compare the potential fruits of his willingness to engage with Trump to someone like Madonna talking about burning down the White House. Which of the two has the highest probability of inspiring positive change? Our nation is in serious trouble on many fronts. We need to promote unity, not further divisiveness. Please don't take this as personal criticism. I am merely trying to point out that engaging in a positive manner with people we might dislike has far greater probability of producing positive outcomes than being at war with them. Intelligent folks are quick to realize that, given our problems, the better strategy is to be active participants in solutions. The contributions can be as simple as promoting intelligent discourse, which has to start with offering respect rather than insults.
  - cooper12 10y ago
    Sorry, but I'm so tired of this olive branch covered in thorns being offered under the name of "unity". What you're basically saying is "shut up and fall in line". It's no different from those conservatives who were more concerned about the social order than the civil rights of African Americans. It's extremely hypocritical to preach about unity while the Trump administration fosters hostility towards muslims and deprives green card holders of their rights to travel freely, while they waste taxpayer money on a useless wall against "bad hombres", who says he loves LGBT people while rescinding the rights of transgender people, who is crippling the agencies meant to protect the populace, giving free reign to those who want to pollute our environment, who is working to deprive millions of healthcare without a tangible alternative, attacks the free press at every chance, and finally whose whole platform was built on outrage and divisiveness. If you want to build unity, you have to speak out about injustices and hypocrisy, not shove it all under the rug to appease everyone but those discriminated against.
alexc05 10y ago
> urged companies to explain the benefits of automated vehicles to a skeptical public. As a "tech guy" myself I have trouble fathoming a position of skepticism around the benefits of self-driving vehicles. I know it is generally a good idea to be skeptical even as a "devil's advocate" but to my mind, there are so many upsides that it is hard to connect with me?
- ThomPete 10y ago
  Well 12million jobs in the transportation sector is a pretty good reason to be sceptic if cars get automated.
  - always_good 10y ago
    Acknowledging that it's unfortunate to be shifted out of a job is different from being skeptical.
    - ThomPete 10y ago
      Well it's not just about that though. With that many in the sector its going to have huge economic consequences for the country.
- rodgerd 10y ago
  "Currently very rich people have a lot invested in idustries that will be threatened by this model. Why should we let you exist?" See also: support for coal industry.
- taf2 10y ago
  I generally agree with your position. But it would be made stronger if you included examples of how it would provide upsides. For example, fewer deaths due to accidents. Take for example at least one prominent person who likely would still alive today if all cars were self driving https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash_Jr. How many countless other lives could have had an impact if only they didnt suffer a similar fate... Next would be how to measure the impact into real numbers like GDP.
rdtsc 10y ago
> She said self-driving cars could dramatically improve safety. Agree, I believe that's a fair assessment and I am glad they are recognizing it.
Animats 10y ago
(I had a long reply on this, but Firefox 51 crashed and lost it. Rewriting). California DMV's regulations for testing are straightforward. 1) Get $5M in insurance, 2) Report all crashes immediately, and disconnects annually, and 3) only trained drivers associated with the manufacturer can drive. That's what Google wanted, and there are about 20 manufacturers with CA autonomous vehicle testing licenses. Their reports are one of the few objective data sources we have on self-driving cars. (Uber whined about having to report their failures, refused to register, and moved testing out of CA.) California's deployment regulations are still in flux, although there's a draft version. So far, nobody has applied to deploy production self-driving vehicles in California. NHTSA started with definitions of levels of autonomy. Informally: - Level 0 - manual driving - Level 1 - auto brake or lane keeping, but not both. - Level 2 - auto speed/brake control and lane keeping (Tesla, BMW, Mercedes, etc.) Driver may have to take over control at any time. - Level 3 - fully automatic driving on some roads. Driver may have to take control, but not instantly. (Google/Waymo, Volvo) - Level 4 - fully automatic driving on all roads. - Level 5 - no driver needed. NHTSA proposes that at level 3 and above, the manufacturer is responsible for all accidents. Volvo is on board with this, and the US Big Three automakers don't object. NHTSA sees a bright line between levels 2 and 3, and says that at level 2, manufacturers should enforce hands-on-wheel. That's what got Tesla into trouble - weak hands-on-wheel enforcement combined with PR that convinced some drivers that "autopilot" was better than it is. Urmson, when at Google, said that their testing taught them that humans cannot take over fast enough to deal with automation failures. This echoes what the aviation community has discovered over the years - when someone who isn't actively flying has to take over control, it takes seconds or tens of seconds before they have full situational awareness. This means the incremental approach of adding more features to assist the driver won't work. Somebody has to be in charge, either the human or the computer. Ambiguity over who is driving leads to accidents. (For an aviation view of this, see "Children of the Magenta", where a chief pilot is talking to his pilots about cockpit aviation dependency.[1]) Congressional hearing last week on self-driving cars.[2] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN41LvuSz10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN41LvuSz10 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJsRF7NcjpM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJsRF7NcjpM
- unityByFreedom 10y ago
  Rewrite! Your expertise is valued here =). Rewrites always come out better anyway.
DonHopkins 10y ago
My immediate reaction to this web page was EEEEEK!!! SPIDERS!!!!
unityByFreedom 10y ago
What's the difference? The NHTSA guidelines were only suggestions, not laws. They were a heads-up to manufacturers in what the public may demand from companies in the future. Plus, the states are the ones regulating on this. California is leading the way in independent testing, and they and a handful of others are the only ones who've begun requiring reporting about accidents involving driver-assist and autonomous vehicles. Am I dumb for saying this administration is unlikely to make federal laws surrounding this technology? Their whole argument is to shrink national government and empower the states to do as they please. Every time they make a national law they shoot themselves in the foot.
thrw99128391 10y ago
Always when some interest group senses that a thread does not go their way, they use flagging (of the submission) to censor the unwanted opinions. Flagging is totally sick on HN.
- grzm 10y ago
  A lot of people on HN are exhausted by a lot of the political submissions. So many of them descend into inflammatory, nonconstructive point scoring, which is the opposite of HN's intent for civil, substantive discussion. People are often flagging regardless of their own political leanings: they don't want HN to have so many political flamewars.
dangrossman 10y ago
This is relevant to a lot of the comments, so I'll just make it as a top-level comment. First, two videos of the latest version of the Tesla Autopilot firmware, rolled out to Tesla vehicle owners this week. Each shows the car repeatedly trying to kill its driver: 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYav3_7miIc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYav3_7miIc 2: https://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?a=zYHrJvXcz6M&u=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DUZ1XLqc5IUg%26feature%3Dshare https://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?a=zYHrJvXcz6M&u=%2F... Tesla broke ties with the previous supplier of its driver assist hardware and software last year after serious disagreements over the safety of Tesla's present and future Autopilot systems and how it was being marketed to consumers. It's now been just a few months, and Tesla's rolled out their own Autopilot software to customers of cars built since the breakup with Mobileye. That software doesn't have the years of testing the old software did. This one, as you can see in the videos I linked from the latest firmware, does things like drive your car off clearly marked roads inexplicably without warning. It is not acting safer than human drivers would in these situations. I'm not happy about sharing the roads with cars that may drive themselves into me with no warning that there's anything wrong with what should be a simple lane keeping system. Especially when that system doesn't force the driver to keep their hands on the wheel, when obviously they need to be there with the software in this state. I want to eventually benefit from the kind of self-driving cars Google is building (Waymo is down to a human temporarily taking the wheel once per 5000 miles of driving on public roads), without the harm of what startups like Tesla can do by putting essentially untested systems on production cars I share the road with. There must be a regulatory middle ground?
- unityByFreedom 10y ago
  > There must be a regulatory middle ground? I think there is, I just wouldn't hold my breath for Congress to act on it. California is leading the way on this. Elect the right people there and hopefully that trickles up and across to other states.
btilly 10y ago
My fear here is that this is mostly an excuse for established car companies to get Trump to target Tesla. Trump has no particular reason to like electric cars, and established car companies have every reason to fear Tesla. I further suspect that Trump sees being bribed as simply a good business proposition...

50 points by devy 10y ago

This is a really difficult situation, in that lowering regulatory overhead would mean getting automated solutions to the public faster, and even if they weren't optimally safe they'd likely be vastly better than human drivers and the sooner we could reap that benefit the better. However, there is a substantial long-term risk to the viability of self-driving cars if any high-profile accidents do happen, because outside of Silicon Valley people generally trust themselves more than technology. So on the other hand it might be better to continue the dangerous status quo for longer, until regulatory framework can assure safety, so as to make the rollout of autonomous cars actually result in adoption of autonomous cars.

Dirlewanger 10y ago
Even the most dug-in libertarian can't really argue against these kinds of regulations; automobiles affect everyone within their vicinity. Ideally, all automobile manufacturers should be politely told to shut the fuck up and deal with it, but the realist in me thinks Chao's pockets will be lined with their money quite soon.
- liberte82 10y ago
  You'd be surprised. The problem with regulations is that they have done their job so well that a subset of people now believe they are not necessary and that the market will "take care of itself". See also: vaccines.
  - unityByFreedom 10y ago
    People can change their tune. Greenspan was chairman of the Fed for 20 years arguing for free market the whole time. It was his life's philosophy. Then he testified to Congress after the housing meltdown '08 and said he was wrong. The banks can't be trusted to regulate themselves via the market, and regulation is necessary. We will face a recession again. Trump will repeal Dodd Frank, banks will start making riskier loans and obscuring them in hidden investment products, and one day someone big enough will pull out, causing the whole house of cards to collapse. And, Republicans and Democrats will do another TARP because the alternative is World Depression II. That is, unless Trump seizes enough power to prevent TARP II.
    - liberte82 10y ago
      People can change their tune, but that's not what is happening in today's political climate. It's been less than ten years since the last financial crisis, and no one has forgotten that it was loose regulations that caused it. What we have happening today is something much more sinister - crises and bailouts are becoming part of the system itself. Socialized bailouts, privatized profits.
      - unityByFreedom 10y ago
        Yeah. I suspect it's not new. We've gone back and forth between being red and blue, through recessions and wars. We need to remain vigilant, and also remember that history does have a way of repeating itself. Let's just hope this isn't a big bang type event, and more of a wake up call for everyone.
- slang800 10y ago
  > Even the most dug-in libertarian can't really argue against these kinds of regulations Oh, I beg to differ. From a hard-core libertarian perspective, the state has no right to exist, let alone impose arbitrary regulations on business owners. People should be free to trade at will and guarantees on safety should be handled through a contract between the people who are trading. To impose regulations on trade would be an act of aggression. During vehicle operation, everyone using the road would need to agree on an acceptable level of risk, probably managed by the road owner, not a state. Even if the owner of a particular road refuses to do business with you, you would still be able to buy whatever vehicles you like and operate them on your own property.
  - nickbauman 10y ago
    Historically, to the degree that the state recedes from markets is to the same degree that markets get more volatile, smaller and less profitable.
    - slang800 10y ago
      That might be true, though I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that. But my point wasn't that regulation is inefficient - it's that libertarians can be quite a bit more extreme than the OP thinks.
      - pharrington 10y ago
        >>That might be true, though I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that. Libertarian paradises aren't always theoretical. See early bitcoin, and the commonly cited Somalia. On the opposite end, known authoritarian-tightass state China currently has the most efficient capitalist economy the planet has yet seen.
        nickbauman 10y ago
        Bitcoin as an economy is essentially a hoax.
- stale2002 10y ago
  Wrong. Self driving cars are already safer than humans. We need to put them on the road, in mass, NOW. Every year we wait is another million people dead, due to terrible human drivers.
  - unityByFreedom 10y ago
    That's a great idea if the tech were ready. Introduced prematurely, it could set the tech back due to public outcry. A few more autopilot deaths in the US in this political climate could really hurt the industry. Chao is looking for an excuse to pull permits.
    - stale2002 10y ago
      Maybe in big government California there would be outcry. But not in Arizona, or any other red state. Get the federal government out of regulating it, and let the states decide. Then, when red states save thousands of lives, the blue states will follow.
      - unityByFreedom 10y ago
        > Then, when red states save thousands of lives, the blue states will follow. Haha or vice versa! Depends who proceeds in the right way. I don't believe there's definitively an answer as to whether Tesla (arguably red and anti-regulation, moving forward without much caution) or Google (blue, more cautious) will find more success. I personally think Google will, but even better than that, it's great that we have such a system that permits that level of competition.
freehunter 10y ago
I've recently been disappointed by the "Uber's car ran a red light!" stories I've been seeing. I know a lot of people hate Uber for various reasons and there's every reason to stay cautious about making sure self-driving cars are predictable and have the right sensors on-board, but imagine if we saw a headline on CNN every time a human-driven car ran a red light. There's no excuse for a self-driving car to run a red light, but human drivers do it millions of times every day and in most cases when we see it we just shake our heads and say "what is that fool thinking?!" But a self-driving car does it once and it's headline news for months.
- marcell 10y ago
  Usually when a human runs a red light, they are aware that it's red. Typically the light is just turning red, and they think they can still make it. For Uber, their car was probably not aware that the light was red, which is more dangerous.
  - pyre 10y ago
    People often run red lights because they aren't paying attention too. It still doesn't make headlines on CNN.
    - saynay 10y ago
      A person running a red light is driving just one car at a time. A self-driving car's software is (potentially) driving many cars. I do not think "a self-driving car runs a red light" is analogous to "a person runs a red light". A closer analogy is to "a distinct class of people who run red lights". I do agree that the media response is overblown, however I do not think it is without some merit.
      - benologist 10y ago
        "A person" discounts the millions of other persons individually doing it around the world - orders of magnitude more than driverless cars could possibly achieve this decade. Their combined effort, while not just running red lights, kills an estimated 1.25 million people a year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...
pharrington 10y ago
Exactly. AI-driven cars almost certainly are/will be safer than human-driven cars. We don't need them right now. Don't cut corners on safety.
elmar 10y ago
"Chao said she was "very concerned" about the potential impact of automated vehicles on employment. There are 3.5 million U.S. truck drivers alone and millions of others employed in driving-related occupations." that is really the hardest point, when you are trying to reduce unemployment like Trump is.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
user5994461 10y ago
> This is a really difficult situation, in that lowering regulatory overhead would mean getting automated solutions to the public faster, Never lower regulations when life are on the line. There is a reason planes and cars don't crash every day, and it's because of these annoying regulations that force tests and QA. You'll never see a summer intern just come in and commits anything he wants and breaks everything. This shit doesn't happen in this line of business. Regulations is good. You don't want devs being involved in your car with zero regulations to back them.

Cursuviam 10y ago

Having read through the previous guidelines, I am not surprised at all at the actions taken. However, the changes taken will likely not change the situation much, as the policy had already been very deferential towards state regulation and self-regulation and really were mostly just guidelines.

astrodust 10y ago

With new taxes against electric vehicles and now this looks like Elon Musk's idea of cozying up to the tyrannical regime is paying big dividends! Good going, dude.

rebootthesystem 10y ago
I down-voted your comment because of the use of the term "tyrannical". I am not a Trump supporter but, in general terms (not attacking you), this language and attitude isn't productive at all. It is far better to be part of the solution than to constantly bitch about what one doesn't like. Not to deviate from the subject of this thread, look at what Elon is doing. I doubt he is in alignment with Trump yet he, and a whole lot of very smart people, recognize that it is far more constructive to participate in finding solutions and providing guidance than engaging in doing nothing more than bitching. Compare the potential fruits of his willingness to engage with Trump to someone like Madonna talking about burning down the White House. Which of the two has the highest probability of inspiring positive change? Our nation is in serious trouble on many fronts. We need to promote unity, not further divisiveness. Please don't take this as personal criticism. I am merely trying to point out that engaging in a positive manner with people we might dislike has far greater probability of producing positive outcomes than being at war with them. Intelligent folks are quick to realize that, given our problems, the better strategy is to be active participants in solutions. The contributions can be as simple as promoting intelligent discourse, which has to start with offering respect rather than insults.
- cooper12 10y ago
  Sorry, but I'm so tired of this olive branch covered in thorns being offered under the name of "unity". What you're basically saying is "shut up and fall in line". It's no different from those conservatives who were more concerned about the social order than the civil rights of African Americans. It's extremely hypocritical to preach about unity while the Trump administration fosters hostility towards muslims and deprives green card holders of their rights to travel freely, while they waste taxpayer money on a useless wall against "bad hombres", who says he loves LGBT people while rescinding the rights of transgender people, who is crippling the agencies meant to protect the populace, giving free reign to those who want to pollute our environment, who is working to deprive millions of healthcare without a tangible alternative, attacks the free press at every chance, and finally whose whole platform was built on outrage and divisiveness. If you want to build unity, you have to speak out about injustices and hypocrisy, not shove it all under the rug to appease everyone but those discriminated against.

alexc05 10y ago

> urged companies to explain the benefits of automated vehicles to a skeptical public. As a "tech guy" myself I have trouble fathoming a position of skepticism around the benefits of self-driving vehicles. I know it is generally a good idea to be skeptical even as a "devil's advocate" but to my mind, there are so many upsides that it is hard to connect with me?

ThomPete 10y ago
Well 12million jobs in the transportation sector is a pretty good reason to be sceptic if cars get automated.
- always_good 10y ago
  Acknowledging that it's unfortunate to be shifted out of a job is different from being skeptical.
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    Well it's not just about that though. With that many in the sector its going to have huge economic consequences for the country.
rodgerd 10y ago
"Currently very rich people have a lot invested in idustries that will be threatened by this model. Why should we let you exist?" See also: support for coal industry.
taf2 10y ago
I generally agree with your position. But it would be made stronger if you included examples of how it would provide upsides. For example, fewer deaths due to accidents. Take for example at least one prominent person who likely would still alive today if all cars were self driving https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash_Jr. How many countless other lives could have had an impact if only they didnt suffer a similar fate... Next would be how to measure the impact into real numbers like GDP.

rdtsc 10y ago

> She said self-driving cars could dramatically improve safety. Agree, I believe that's a fair assessment and I am glad they are recognizing it.

Animats 10y ago

(I had a long reply on this, but Firefox 51 crashed and lost it. Rewriting). California DMV's regulations for testing are straightforward. 1) Get $5M in insurance, 2) Report all crashes immediately, and disconnects annually, and 3) only trained drivers associated with the manufacturer can drive. That's what Google wanted, and there are about 20 manufacturers with CA autonomous vehicle testing licenses. Their reports are one of the few objective data sources we have on self-driving cars. (Uber whined about having to report their failures, refused to register, and moved testing out of CA.) California's deployment regulations are still in flux, although there's a draft version. So far, nobody has applied to deploy production self-driving vehicles in California. NHTSA started with definitions of levels of autonomy. Informally: - Level 0 - manual driving - Level 1 - auto brake or lane keeping, but not both. - Level 2 - auto speed/brake control and lane keeping (Tesla, BMW, Mercedes, etc.) Driver may have to take over control at any time. - Level 3 - fully automatic driving on some roads. Driver may have to take control, but not instantly. (Google/Waymo, Volvo) - Level 4 - fully automatic driving on all roads. - Level 5 - no driver needed. NHTSA proposes that at level 3 and above, the manufacturer is responsible for all accidents. Volvo is on board with this, and the US Big Three automakers don't object. NHTSA sees a bright line between levels 2 and 3, and says that at level 2, manufacturers should enforce hands-on-wheel. That's what got Tesla into trouble - weak hands-on-wheel enforcement combined with PR that convinced some drivers that "autopilot" was better than it is. Urmson, when at Google, said that their testing taught them that humans cannot take over fast enough to deal with automation failures. This echoes what the aviation community has discovered over the years - when someone who isn't actively flying has to take over control, it takes seconds or tens of seconds before they have full situational awareness. This means the incremental approach of adding more features to assist the driver won't work. Somebody has to be in charge, either the human or the computer. Ambiguity over who is driving leads to accidents. (For an aviation view of this, see "Children of the Magenta", where a chief pilot is talking to his pilots about cockpit aviation dependency.[1]) Congressional hearing last week on self-driving cars.[2] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN41LvuSz10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN41LvuSz10 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJsRF7NcjpM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJsRF7NcjpM

unityByFreedom 10y ago
Rewrite! Your expertise is valued here =). Rewrites always come out better anyway.

DonHopkins 10y ago

My immediate reaction to this web page was EEEEEK!!! SPIDERS!!!!

unityByFreedom 10y ago

What's the difference? The NHTSA guidelines were only suggestions, not laws. They were a heads-up to manufacturers in what the public may demand from companies in the future. Plus, the states are the ones regulating on this. California is leading the way in independent testing, and they and a handful of others are the only ones who've begun requiring reporting about accidents involving driver-assist and autonomous vehicles. Am I dumb for saying this administration is unlikely to make federal laws surrounding this technology? Their whole argument is to shrink national government and empower the states to do as they please. Every time they make a national law they shoot themselves in the foot.

thrw99128391 10y ago

Always when some interest group senses that a thread does not go their way, they use flagging (of the submission) to censor the unwanted opinions. Flagging is totally sick on HN.

grzm 10y ago
A lot of people on HN are exhausted by a lot of the political submissions. So many of them descend into inflammatory, nonconstructive point scoring, which is the opposite of HN's intent for civil, substantive discussion. People are often flagging regardless of their own political leanings: they don't want HN to have so many political flamewars.

dangrossman 10y ago

This is relevant to a lot of the comments, so I'll just make it as a top-level comment. First, two videos of the latest version of the Tesla Autopilot firmware, rolled out to Tesla vehicle owners this week. Each shows the car repeatedly trying to kill its driver: 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYav3_7miIc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYav3_7miIc 2: https://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?a=zYHrJvXcz6M&u=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DUZ1XLqc5IUg%26feature%3Dshare https://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?a=zYHrJvXcz6M&u=%2F... Tesla broke ties with the previous supplier of its driver assist hardware and software last year after serious disagreements over the safety of Tesla's present and future Autopilot systems and how it was being marketed to consumers. It's now been just a few months, and Tesla's rolled out their own Autopilot software to customers of cars built since the breakup with Mobileye. That software doesn't have the years of testing the old software did. This one, as you can see in the videos I linked from the latest firmware, does things like drive your car off clearly marked roads inexplicably without warning. It is not acting safer than human drivers would in these situations. I'm not happy about sharing the roads with cars that may drive themselves into me with no warning that there's anything wrong with what should be a simple lane keeping system. Especially when that system doesn't force the driver to keep their hands on the wheel, when obviously they need to be there with the software in this state. I want to eventually benefit from the kind of self-driving cars Google is building (Waymo is down to a human temporarily taking the wheel once per 5000 miles of driving on public roads), without the harm of what startups like Tesla can do by putting essentially untested systems on production cars I share the road with. There must be a regulatory middle ground?

unityByFreedom 10y ago
> There must be a regulatory middle ground? I think there is, I just wouldn't hold my breath for Congress to act on it. California is leading the way on this. Elect the right people there and hopefully that trickles up and across to other states.

btilly 10y ago

My fear here is that this is mostly an excuse for established car companies to get Trump to target Tesla. Trump has no particular reason to like electric cars, and established car companies have every reason to fear Tesla. I further suspect that Trump sees being bribed as simply a good business proposition...