6 ms·

It has no horn?! "What Makes for a Street Legal Vehicle?" Horn – It may not seem the most important piece of safety equipment, and many big cities even limit

by gvb 9y ago

It has no horn?! "What Makes for a Street Legal Vehicle?" Horn – It may not seem the most important piece of safety equipment, and many big cities even limit how it can be used, but to be street legal every vehicle must have a horn that is audible for at least 200 feet. The horn can generally be any note or sound (even ones that play musical tunes are usually permitted), so long as the minimum volume requirements are met. Ref: https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=31563 https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=31563

ajnin 9y ago
Maybe it has one. It just wasn't programmed to use it.
- jacobush 9y ago
  If a tree falls in the forest? Did it really have a horn then?
  - dijit 9y ago
    Not sure why the downvotes, this is a very good point. If a requirement for being street legal is having a horn then the assumption is that the driver has the ability to press the horn. (like having a condom sitting on a shelf, it's not effective if not used). Not programming the car to use the horn is basically the same as not making a button in the cabin which can activate the horn for a human driver. In that case it would be not road legal.
    - lmm 9y ago
      > Not programming the car to use the horn is basically the same as not making a button in the cabin which can activate the horn for a human driver. In that case it would be not road legal. Isn't it more akin to having a working horn but a driver who never presses it? Would a human driver ever be prosecuted for not using their horn?
      - CydeWeys 9y ago
        The difference is, though, that the human driver is always capable of pressing it, and you have no way of proving that they certifiably never do in any situation. If a self-driving car isn't programmed to ever use the horn, though, then that's a different situation. It's easy to prove that it can't ever use the horn because it isn't programmed to do so. That's more akin to a normal car having a horn in it that isn't wired up.
        lmm 9y ago
        > The difference is, though, that the human driver is always capable of pressing it, and you have no way of proving that they certifiably never do in any situation. Why should that make a difference though? Imagine e.g. a truck backed into a car when the (human) driver didn't press the horn. Is the car driver liable? Whether the driver might have pressed the horn under other circumstances doesn't seem like it has any bearing on that question. We're judged on what we did, not what we might have done - shouldn't it be the same for the software?
        Piskvorrr 9y ago
        Not quite. We're also judged on intent: "why didn't the driver press the horn? Was it because he was busy not-driving-into something else, because he was busy texting, or because the horn was not connected to the button?". If we were judged only on did/didn't, law would be a straightforward and uninteresting field of human endeavor.
        dsfyu404ed 9y ago
        >Whether the driver might have pressed the horn under other circumstances doesn't seem like it has any bearing on that question Replace that with some other subsystem that is practically necessary for safe operation in a commonly encountered subset of driving situation requires manual activation and we require vehicles to have. Lights, wipers, brakes, seatbelts, defrost, etc. See the problem?
        9y ago
pbhjpbhj 9y ago
So, are they going to take the driver to court? Sarcasm aside, who is deemed to be in control, who do you sue for the damage if this vehicle crashes in to you - isn't it the manufacturer that causes the crash (not in this case necessarily, I'm talking generally).
- ams6110 9y ago
  > who do you sue for the damage if this vehicle crashes in to you Generally, the owner of the at-fault vehicle is responsible.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    I own my vehicle, if you drive it and cause an accident aren't you primarily at fault. Assuming normal circumstances (so not considering things like me letting a child drive, or letting you drive drunk, etc.). The person/persons in control of the vehicle are surely at fault - being the owner doesn't give you power to alter the programming and so you are powerless to avoid a crash. The company directors, who instruct the system's programmers, are the one's able to avoid the crash by making the vehicle operate effectively. There may be circumstance where a crash could not be avoided but there are going to be plenty when alternative actions - for which there is a strong rationale - would avoid a crash too.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      I agree, it should be considered a part with a manufacturing defect, not the owner's fault.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Generally, the owner of the at-fault vehicle is responsible. Generally, the driver is at fault and liable if the driver violated a traffic law; if the accident resulted from a manufacturing defect, the manufacturer is (and potentially other participants in the stream of commerce are) liable. The owner, as distinct from the driver, may be liable in certain cases, such as (IIRC) maintenance problems. The absence of a driver reduces the difficulty of ascribing liability by reducing the possibilities.

by gvb 9y ago

ajnin 9y ago

Maybe it has one. It just wasn't programmed to use it.

jacobush 9y ago
If a tree falls in the forest? Did it really have a horn then?
- dijit 9y ago
  Not sure why the downvotes, this is a very good point. If a requirement for being street legal is having a horn then the assumption is that the driver has the ability to press the horn. (like having a condom sitting on a shelf, it's not effective if not used). Not programming the car to use the horn is basically the same as not making a button in the cabin which can activate the horn for a human driver. In that case it would be not road legal.
  - lmm 9y ago
    > Not programming the car to use the horn is basically the same as not making a button in the cabin which can activate the horn for a human driver. In that case it would be not road legal. Isn't it more akin to having a working horn but a driver who never presses it? Would a human driver ever be prosecuted for not using their horn?
    - CydeWeys 9y ago
      The difference is, though, that the human driver is always capable of pressing it, and you have no way of proving that they certifiably never do in any situation. If a self-driving car isn't programmed to ever use the horn, though, then that's a different situation. It's easy to prove that it can't ever use the horn because it isn't programmed to do so. That's more akin to a normal car having a horn in it that isn't wired up.
      - lmm 9y ago
        > The difference is, though, that the human driver is always capable of pressing it, and you have no way of proving that they certifiably never do in any situation. Why should that make a difference though? Imagine e.g. a truck backed into a car when the (human) driver didn't press the horn. Is the car driver liable? Whether the driver might have pressed the horn under other circumstances doesn't seem like it has any bearing on that question. We're judged on what we did, not what we might have done - shouldn't it be the same for the software?
        Piskvorrr 9y ago
        Not quite. We're also judged on intent: "why didn't the driver press the horn? Was it because he was busy not-driving-into something else, because he was busy texting, or because the horn was not connected to the button?". If we were judged only on did/didn't, law would be a straightforward and uninteresting field of human endeavor.
        dsfyu404ed 9y ago
        >Whether the driver might have pressed the horn under other circumstances doesn't seem like it has any bearing on that question Replace that with some other subsystem that is practically necessary for safe operation in a commonly encountered subset of driving situation requires manual activation and we require vehicles to have. Lights, wipers, brakes, seatbelts, defrost, etc. See the problem?
        9y ago

pbhjpbhj 9y ago

So, are they going to take the driver to court? Sarcasm aside, who is deemed to be in control, who do you sue for the damage if this vehicle crashes in to you - isn't it the manufacturer that causes the crash (not in this case necessarily, I'm talking generally).

ams6110 9y ago
> who do you sue for the damage if this vehicle crashes in to you Generally, the owner of the at-fault vehicle is responsible.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  I own my vehicle, if you drive it and cause an accident aren't you primarily at fault. Assuming normal circumstances (so not considering things like me letting a child drive, or letting you drive drunk, etc.). The person/persons in control of the vehicle are surely at fault - being the owner doesn't give you power to alter the programming and so you are powerless to avoid a crash. The company directors, who instruct the system's programmers, are the one's able to avoid the crash by making the vehicle operate effectively. There may be circumstance where a crash could not be avoided but there are going to be plenty when alternative actions - for which there is a strong rationale - would avoid a crash too.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    I agree, it should be considered a part with a manufacturing defect, not the owner's fault.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Generally, the owner of the at-fault vehicle is responsible. Generally, the driver is at fault and liable if the driver violated a traffic law; if the accident resulted from a manufacturing defect, the manufacturer is (and potentially other participants in the stream of commerce are) liable. The owner, as distinct from the driver, may be liable in certain cases, such as (IIRC) maintenance problems. The absence of a driver reduces the difficulty of ascribing liability by reducing the possibilities.