4 ms·

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

by ajnin 9y ago

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?
        lmm 9y ago
        > 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? No, I really don't. I think a human driver would and should obviously be prosecuted for not using lights, wipers, brakes, or defrost in a situation that called for them (seatbelts have specific laws about them). It's not at all obvious to me that this would ever happen with the horn.
    - dominotw 9y ago
      >working horn but a driver who never presses it? Driver needs to have the ability to press it. More correct analogy is driver with some physical defect that renders him incapable of pressing the horn, which would be illegal. They ask you to press horn in drivers exam .
    - Retric 9y ago
      > Would a human driver ever be prosecuted for not using their horn? Yes, that could happen. A driver loses control of his car on a slippery, wet roadway and doesn’t immediately honk to warn vehicles around him "Failure to worn." http://southfloridainjuryaccidentblog.com/2015/04/16/florida-car-accidents-honking-your-horn-and-failure-to-warn/ http://southfloridainjuryaccidentblog.com/2015/04/16/florida... That said, it would be an unusual citation.
      - lsaferite 9y ago
        Yeah... the last thing I'm thinking about if my car is sliding around is hitting my horn.
        twothamendment 9y ago
        You'd be surprised at what you can think about while sliding around. I drove down a very steep, ice covered hill towards a traffic signal. My luck - it turned red and there was no way I was going to get stopped. I flashed my lights on and off as I tried to brake, down shift and I blew right through that intersection. No accident - everyone saw my lights flashing and was alert enough to stay out of the way. Someday a self driving car will me "smart" enough to honk the horn or flash the lights - or send out a panic signal to other self driving cars.

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

by 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?
        lmm 9y ago
        > 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? No, I really don't. I think a human driver would and should obviously be prosecuted for not using lights, wipers, brakes, or defrost in a situation that called for them (seatbelts have specific laws about them). It's not at all obvious to me that this would ever happen with the horn.
  - dominotw 9y ago
    >working horn but a driver who never presses it? Driver needs to have the ability to press it. More correct analogy is driver with some physical defect that renders him incapable of pressing the horn, which would be illegal. They ask you to press horn in drivers exam .
  - Retric 9y ago
    > Would a human driver ever be prosecuted for not using their horn? Yes, that could happen. A driver loses control of his car on a slippery, wet roadway and doesn’t immediately honk to warn vehicles around him "Failure to worn." http://southfloridainjuryaccidentblog.com/2015/04/16/florida-car-accidents-honking-your-horn-and-failure-to-warn/ http://southfloridainjuryaccidentblog.com/2015/04/16/florida... That said, it would be an unusual citation.
    - lsaferite 9y ago
      Yeah... the last thing I'm thinking about if my car is sliding around is hitting my horn.
      - twothamendment 9y ago
        You'd be surprised at what you can think about while sliding around. I drove down a very steep, ice covered hill towards a traffic signal. My luck - it turned red and there was no way I was going to get stopped. I flashed my lights on and off as I tried to brake, down shift and I blew right through that intersection. No accident - everyone saw my lights flashing and was alert enough to stay out of the way. Someday a self driving car will me "smart" enough to honk the horn or flash the lights - or send out a panic signal to other self driving cars.